| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 522.1 | By works a man is justified, and not by faith only | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 13 1994 19:12 | 25 |
| What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have
not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and
destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be
ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which
are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath
not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith
without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou
believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe,
and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is
dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by
works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith,
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he
was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is
justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had
received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the
body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
-- James 2:14-26
|
| 522.2 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Jul 13 1994 19:17 | 14 |
| Birth, without subsequent sustenance, is dead, too. We all know that
faith alone saves. Pursuant to faith is action; the expression of belief.
My father told me recently that his prayer life is focused on this verse:
John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall
ye be my disciples.
He said he leaves it to the Lord to define what "much fruit" actually
translates to be, and how it comes to fruition. So instead of praying
for patience, patience may be the fruit you bear; that is, allowing the
Lord to be the husbandman to prune and to procure.
Mark
|
| 522.3 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 13 1994 19:20 | 13 |
| In the parable of the foolish and wise virgins, the foolish virgins have
faith in the bridegroom, but do not do anything to act upon that faith.
They believe in the Church, but they do not do not persist in charity, and
do not do those works God has prepared for them to walk in.
They are left out in the cold when the bridegroom comes, trying to catch up
when it is too late.
No one else can do your works of charity for you, thus it was impossible
for the wise virgins to give any of their oil.
/john
|
| 522.4 | Faith is the first and most basic requirement | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 13 1994 19:23 | 5 |
| This topic does not discuss works without faith.
It assumes faith, and discusses what else is required, in addition to faith.
/john
|
| 522.5 | | CSC32::P_SO | Get those shoes off your head! | Wed Jul 13 1994 19:27 | 5 |
| Nothing else is REQUIRED without faith.
But, some things - for me anyway come along with faith.
Pam
|
| 522.6 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Jul 13 1994 19:28 | 7 |
| >This topic does not discuss works without faith.
>It assumes faith, and discusses what else is required, in addition to faith.
I knew this John, and hope that .2 underscores this, and does not detract
from it.
MM
|
| 522.7 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | | Wed Jul 13 1994 20:19 | 4 |
| I always thought the virgins that lacked oil represented those who did
not have the Holy Spirit.
-Jack
|
| 522.9 | Work while you have the opportunity; tomorrow may be too late | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1994 12:36 | 5 |
| The wise took oil in the vessels for their lamps before sleeping.
The foolish didn't.
/john
|
| 522.10 | Work and pray without ceasing | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1994 14:38 | 46 |
| [Ab, Bb, Db, Eb] C=middle C, a=a above middle C. x = 1/4, xx = 1/2, etc.
EE F E EEEE aa G F EE CC
Come, labor on Who dares stand i - dle
F F E D EEEE cc a a GG FF
on the harvest plain, While all a-round us
G a G C FFFF FF G G aa EE
waves the golden grain? And to each ser-vant
F G a b cc aa dddddd cb cccccccc
does the Master say, "Go work to - day."
Come, labor on
The enemy is watching night and day,
To sow the tares, to snatch the seed away;
While we in sleep our duty have forgot,
He slumbered not.
Come, labor on
Away with gloomy doubts and faithless fear!
No arm so weak but may do service here:
By feeblest agents may our God fulfill
His righteous will.
Come, labor on
Claim the high calling angels cannot share--
To young and old the Gospel gladness bear:
Redeem the time; its hours too swiftly fly.
The night draws nigh.
Come, labor on
No time for rest, till glows the western sky,
Till the long shadows o'er our pathway lie,
And a glad sound comes with the setting sun,--
"Servants, well done."
Come, labor on
The toil is pleasant, the reward is sure,
Blessed are those who to the end endure;
How full their joy, how deep their rest shall be,
O Lord, with thee.
Words: Jane Laurie Borthwick (1813-1897), alt.
Music: Ora Labora, Thomas Tertius Noble (1867-1953)
|
| 522.11 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Thu Jul 14 1994 14:39 | 9 |
| John,
I much admire your notation, as well as appreciating the words. I do wish
there were as simple a way to include the harmony, which I feel is an
essential dimension to the music ... May your labour of love be richly
rewarded!
Andrew
|
| 522.15 | Scripture constantly affirms the necessity of works after faith | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1994 18:05 | 10 |
| > I do not see any correlation between works and this parable except
> by a private interpretation.
Well, it's actually an ancient public teaching on the parable, affirmed by
both the eastern orthodox and western church, not my private interpretation.
So I would say that not seeing the correlation would be the private
interpretation.
/john
|
| 522.16 | Make profitable use of the talents God gives you | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1994 18:14 | 38 |
| For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who
called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one
he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man
according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same,
and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two,
he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged
in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with
them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other
five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold,
I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well
done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few
things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of
thy lord.
He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst
unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast
been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things:
enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee
that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering
where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent
in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said
unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where
I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore
to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have
received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give
it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be
given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be
taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant
into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
--Matthew 25:13-30
|
| 522.17 | Do diligently that which God has prepared for you | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1994 18:20 | 17 |
| re .16
By the way, this parable is extremely important linguistically.
The word "talent", at the time the parable was written, was a large
sum of money, worth more than a common workers wage for fifteen years.
Because of this parable, "talent" obtained its meaning as an ability
given by God.
This parable affirms the necessity of using those talents God has
given to you in a way which is profitable to God.
I would have to be one of the first to admit that I have not always
done so.
/john
|
| 522.18 | Faith and Faith Alone | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jul 14 1994 21:38 | 14 |
| Hi John,
I am not denying that works are not important, BUT which is
it?
Are we justified by a faith WHICH works?
Or are we justified by faith PLUS works?
I believe in the first one. Faith allows God to work through
us. It is impossible to have true faith and not allow God to
produce works through a person.
Tony
|
| 522.19 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 14 1994 21:52 | 34 |
| > Are we justified by a faith WHICH works?
>
> Or are we justified by faith PLUS works?
>
> I believe in the first one. Faith allows God to work through
> us. It is impossible to have true faith and not allow God to
> produce works through a person.
A faith which works produces works. We are justified by a faith which works
plus the works we do in response to the Holy Spirit working in us because of
our faith.
St. James says:
"by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
You are right that it is impossible to have true faith and not allow God to
produce works. That's really just another way of saying the catholic and
scriptural teaching that faith without works is dead.
Thus the only way to determine whether a faith is true is by the works that
are the fruit of the Holy Spirit received in faith. No matter how much one
professes to believe in God and in his death and resurrection, unless he does
those works he is called to do, his faith is no more likely to save him than
the faith of the devil. (St. James says that, too.)
By the way, this is one of those determinations that only God can make; self-
examination as to whether you are doing enough works is also a good idea, but
I don't think it's the place of a Christian to berate another Christian for
not working hard enough. However, it is the place of a Christian to correct
another Christian who claims that works are not a necessary part of God's
plan for salvation.
/john
|
| 522.21 | Define works | MIMS::CASON_K | | Fri Jul 15 1994 12:10 | 14 |
| John,
Would you mind defining 'works' for me, as you/the Catholic Church
perceive them? Would they include:
- Good deeds
- Prayers
- Sacriments
- Means of grace
- Penance
Thanks,
Kent
|
| 522.22 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jul 15 1994 12:52 | 47 |
| Using the postcommunion prayer in The Book of Common Prayer, we pray that
God will "so assist us with [his] grace that we may continue in that holy
fellowship [the Church] and do all such good works as God has prepared for
us to walk in."
God's grace is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the fruits of which,
according to Galatians, are: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,
goodness, and faith.
These are the talents God gives us; Scripture commands us to make profitable
use of them; to do so we need to do deeds of love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, and faith. We need to proclaim the Gospel, pray
for others (faith, hope, and charity are partly accomplished in prayer),
participate in and build up the public worship of the Church, and do all
these things in so far as we are able and are called by God.
Many places in scripture speak of things we must do. Everyone is familiar
with the beatitudes, which call us to actively purify our hearts, to be
kind, to be peacemakers, etc. In the letter to Philemon, we are told to
think about whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if
there is anything worthy of praise.
Works are fulfilling your duty to God, which Anglicans have historically
understood to mean that we are to believe in him, to fear him, to love
him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, to worship him and to
give him thanks, to put our whole trust in him, to call upon him, to
honor his holy name and word, and to serve him truly all the days of
our lives.
Works are also fulfulling your duty towards your neighbor, to love him
as oneself, to love, honour, and help father and mother, to honor and obey
legitimate authority, to order oneself in the lowliness and reverence
which becometh a servant of God, to hurt no one by word or deed, to
bear no malice or hatred in one's heart, to keep one's body in temperance,
soberness, and chastity, to be honest, to not be jealous, but to labour
truly to earn one's own living.
In all things, to "do my duty in that state of life unto which it shall
please God to call me." This is living the Christian life. This is
our vocation in God.
All of these things are impossible without God's grace, received by
praying to him, listening to and studying his Word, and receiving his
sacraments.
/john
|
| 522.23 | "No Righteousness by Works" | NACAD::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Fri Jul 15 1994 18:58 | 12 |
| St. Mark the Ascetic, No Righteousness by Works (quoted in the Philokalia)
18. Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true
faith. Others fulfil the commandments and then expect the kingdom as a reward
due to them. Both are mistaken.
19. A master is under no obligation to reward his slaves; on the other hand,
those who do not serve him well are not given their freedom.
23. We who have received baptism offer good works, not by way of repayment, but
to preserve the purity given to us.
|
| 522.24 | Only God Can Justify and Only Faith Permits Him To | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jul 15 1994 20:45 | 45 |
| Hi,
The following is how I look at it.
We cannot justify ourselves. If our works contribute to
our justification, we are then justified by some combination
of God's work and our own. To say that we are saved by faith
and works (I suppose) can be taken to mean more than one thing.
But, I would disagree with the position that if I (for example)
help an old lady accross the street, I am saved by the merits
of Jesus Christ + the act of helping that old lady accross the
street. We cannot add anything to the work of God.
I do believe that to be justified is to be made righteouss;
"the doers of the law shall be justified." And many of you already
know I do not believe there is any salvation requirement apart
from the changed heart - that that is all God really needs to do.
And when that work has begun, God honors those first steps and
accounts us righteouss.
Anyway, its the status of the heart itself. Has the heart under-
gone a conversion? In the spiritual realm, is it really changed?
If that heart is changed at all (if there is any cleansing that
has taken place there), it must follow that faith allowed God to
perform a work in it. And thus the work of God was allowed to
justify that person.
A heart that has this characteristic MUST perform good works. A
good tree grows good fruit and a bad tree grows bad fruit. Its
as sure as the law of gravity, but in the spiritual realm.
But, really...a crucial issue here is...what contributes to the
actual change of the makeup of the heart? Does doing a good deed
contribute to that change? If it does, it does so only in the
sense that the good deed was a manifestation of exercising faith
and the process of exercising faith allows God to further His work
of justifying (making right, making clean) the heart.
All good works we can accomplish are predicated on operative faith
which implies they are predicated on God already having had
justified (transformed) the heart because that faith allowed Him to.
Tony
|
| 522.25 | Justification by what before whom | KALI::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Jul 15 1994 21:12 | 93 |
| <<< ATLANA::DUB1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V5.NOTE;1 >>>
-< ...by believing you may have life in His Name >-
================================================================================
Note 925.0 Faith vs. Works 8 replies
NAC::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" 69 lines 24-AUG-1991 09:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith defined
-------------
According to the American Heritage Dictionary: "1.a. Confident belief, trust"
According to the Bible: "Being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we
do not see." (Heb 1:1)
Faith vs. Works
---------------
"What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to
him as righteousness.' [Gen 15:6] Now when a man works, his wages are not
credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does
not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as
righteousness." (Rom 4:3-5)
Faith results in works. Why?
-----------------------------
We believe God. Our faith (confident belief, trust) results in us receiving
the Spirit (Gal 3:2). The Spirit of God causes us to do good works (Gal
3:3-5).
Before whom are we justified by faith? Before whom are we justified by works?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is omniscient (all knowing). He sees the heart. He sees our faith before
it results in any kind of action. God is self-sufficient. Our actions do not
benefit him. We are justified 100% by faith before God, apart from actions.
Men (and all the rest of God's creation) cannot see the heart. We can only
judge a person's faith by his actions. His "faith" alone is useless to us.
We are justified 100% by works before men and all creation. Our faith is
demonstrated by our actions.
Please re-read the above two concepts. They will allow you to understand
why many scriptures clearly talk about justification by works (such as James)
and why many scriptures clearly talk about justification by faith (such as
Romans). There is no conflict or contradiction. There is no reason to
compromise or seek a "happy medium" between the two. If you understand that
faith (and only faith) justifies you in the sight of God, and works (and only
works) justifies you in the sight of men and all creation, then everything just
comes together.
With the above in mind, consider the following passage: (Emphasis mine)
"WHAT GOOD IS IT, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?
Can such a faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and
daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and
well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, WHAT GOOD IS IT? [...to
who? --GDW] In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' SHOW
ME your faith without deeds, and I WILL SHOW YOU my faith by what I do. You
believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -- and
shudder. You foolish man, DO YOU WANT EVIDENCE that faith without deeds is
useless? Was not our ancester Abraham CONSIDERED RIGHTEOUS FOR WHAT HE DID
[...by who? --GDW] when he offered his son Isaac on the alter? You see that
his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made
complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham
believed God, and it was credited to him [..by who? --GDW] as righteousness.'
and he was called God's friend. YOU SEE that a person is justified by what he
does [...before who? --GDW] and not by faith alone. (James 2:14-24)
Now did you just skim the above passage? Don't go pressing any buttons now.
Go back and read the whole passage, word by word, and answer my questions.
================================================================================
Note 925.1 Faith vs. Works 1 of 8
NAC::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe" 13 lines 24-AUG-1991 10:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...so for example, take the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25.
Jesus turns to the goats and says "I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to
eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink..."
Does this mean that we are justified before God by what we do? Of course
not! It means that on the day of judgement, Jesus will demonstrate TO YOU
(and to everyone else) the validity of your faith by what you did.
Do you think you are going to have a silly argument with God, like "I had
faith!" "No you didn't." "Yes I did." "No you didn't." "Did." "Didn't."
"Did so!" "Did not!" "Did so!" "Did not!". Believe me, you're not going
to fool anybody on judgment day.
|
| 522.26 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jul 15 1994 22:30 | 12 |
| >...so for example, take the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25.
>
>Jesus turns to the goats and says "I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to
>eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink..."
>
>Does this mean that we are justified before God by what we do? Of course
>not! It means that on the day of judgment, Jesus will demonstrate TO YOU
>(and to everyone else) the validity of your faith by what you did.
Absolutely right! Thank you, Garth
/john
|
| 522.27 | What justification is | KOLBE::eje | Eric James Ewanco | Sat Jul 16 1994 02:44 | 122 |
| > Would you mind defining 'works' for me, as you/the Catholic Church
> perceive them? Would they include:
> - Good deeds
> - Prayers
> - Sacriments
> - Means of grace
> - Penance
Before one can intelligently and profitably discuss the difference between
the Catholic view and the Evangelical or Reformed view of justification, one
must more clearly define what the terms mean in each case.
When the Reformers spoke about justification by faith alone, they saw
justification as a juridical act by which God declares a believer as not
guilty, and dismissed the charges against him, so to speak. They also view
justification as a one time event: those who believed had all the charges
against them dismissed, those who did not believe were still accounted as
guilty. Also, all believers they taught were equally just -- all were not
guilty.
However, when the Catholic faith talks about justification, it speaks of
something very different. The root of the Greek work for "justification" is
identical to the word which is the root of the word "righteousness".
Literally, to be justified is to be made righteous. We do not seek
justification as a juridical dismissal of charges -- we see justification as a
whole inner change in a person which makes him a "new creation" and truly right
and just before God. "Justification <detaches man from sin> which contradicts
the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon
God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God.
It frees from enslavement to sin, and it heals." (Catholic Catechism
#1990). "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the
sanctification and renewal of the interior man." (Council of Trent, DS 1528,
quoted in the Catechism #1989). "With justification, faith, hope, and charity
are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us."
(#1991) Through justification we are reborn and recreated. We become
"partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), we come to share in Christ's
deity (Col 2:10), we are "filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"
(Eph 3:19). We are also made through justification adopted sons and daughters
of God and heirs to the promise (cf. Tit 3:7). A man's soul is recreated -- he
moves from being God's enemy to being his friend, and he becomes truly just.
Luther used the comparison, regarding justification, of a dung heap covered
with snow -- the filth is obscured, but is still present. We do not believe
this. Rather, "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11) God
heals us of original sin, and "raise[s] us up with him in the heavenly places"
(Eph 2:6).
Justification is the most excellent work of God's love (Catechism #1994) and is
given to us by grace and is wrought by the Holy Spirit (Catechism #1987f,
1996). God's grace works in us before our justification, during our
justification, and after our justification (#2001). It is merited by the
Passion of Christ (1992, 2020). The cause of our justification is God's mercy
and Christ's passion on the Cross (Council of Trent, DS 1529).
Our initial justification is not merited by us in any way, whether by faith or
by works (2010, 2027). I say "initial justification" because we view the
justice (or righteousness) which we receive in justification as a real quality
that inheres (or remains) in our souls (Council of Trent, DS 1530). As such,
it can increase in us (Trent, DS 1535). Moreover, we believe that the power of
our justification is so great, that it grants us freedom to cooperate with
God's grace (Catechism #1993). Not only does it make us truly just, it makes
us truly able to merit reward and grow in righteousness through cooperation
with God's grace (#2009). All of our righteousness and merit comes not from
us, but from God, by His grace through the working of the Holy Spirit
(cf. Trent, DS 1547; Catechism #2011). Nevertheless, that righteousness and
merit which we receive by grace because of the merits of Christ, becomes truly
ours and part of our nature, just as a gift which one receives becomes one's
own property, despite the fact that it was a gift.
Thus, one might be said to be justified by what he does, in the words of James,
in that having been incorporated into Christ by faith and rebirth, he may now
grow in righteousness (i.e. be justified) by what he does. However, one's
initial justification is a pure grace of God, and there is no way we can merit
it either by faith or by works.
We also believe that this justice can be lost entirely through serious sin,
just as Adam and Eve lost their justice through sin. The fact that one is able
to lose one's state of justice has absolutely no bearing on whether one merited
it in the first place; that is to say, it is fallacious to claim that if one
could lose his justice by sin, that this is tantamount to saying that he has
merited that justice, or procured it through works. "If your right eye causes
you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one
part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your
right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for
you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
(Matthew 5:29) Matthew 10:22: "All men will hate you because of me, but he who
stands firm to the end will be saved." 1 Tim 4:15f: "Be diligent in these
matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress.
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers."
The only "work" strictly necessary for salvation is faith working through love
(Gal 5:6). 1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death to life,
because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death." But,
as the same Apostle says, if you love Christ, you will keep his commandments. 1
John 2:3: "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The
man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the
truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is truly made
complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in
him must walk as Jesus did." But simply because living out the Gospel in
perseverence and obedience is in a sense a condition for salvation, our
salvation is not thereby merited, for it is only by God's grace that we are
where we stand, and it is Christ's Passion alone which, ultimately, merits all
that we have received. We must remember that while from our own merits we
are be saved, but only by God's grace and mercy, nevertheless we earn damnation
wholly on our own.
In summary, then, our justification comes by God's grace merited by the Passion
of Christ, and nothing we can do, either faith or works, can merit our initial
justification. But when we are first justified, we are made truly righteous
and just, recreated, renewed, and freed from bondage, so that we might be able
to cooperate with God's grace thereon. Moved and enabled by God's grace then,
we may grow in righteousness by what we do, and we may truly merit reward in
heaven. All our merits and righteousness, however, are ultimately gifts from
God, because it is He who has given them to us and He who has enabled us to
cooperate in His divine life. "You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy
Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts. [Roman
Missal, Prefatio I de Sanctis, citing the "Doctor of grace," St. Augustine,
En. in Ps. 102, 7: PL 37, 1321-1322]
Eric
|
| 522.28 | According to your works will you be judged. | VERVAN::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Mon Jul 18 1994 10:09 | 8 |
|
Also, remember that you will be judged on your works. cf.Rev
21:11,22:12.
peace,
tom
|
| 522.29 | The Power Is In The Word Itself | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Jul 18 1994 17:26 | 80 |
| re: .27
Hi Eric,
Excellent reply! I think I agreed with much of it save serious
disagreement with the very last paragraph which mentioned works
as partial contribution of justification (even though as you
mentioned, the works were really wrought by God).
The greatest doctrinal conflict in Christendom over the centuries
has been on this very issue of justification.
Protestantism said that we are justified by faith. I believe that
is true, however while espousing a true formula I don't think it
is altogether understood. As you said, Protestantism's under-
standing is removed from the heart change; it is purely a judicial
thing.
Meanwhile Catholicism had always railed at Protestantism for the
very point you raise. How can God account righteouss that which is
not righteouss? Would that not make God a liar?
My own study into this includes reading a fair amount of Catholic
literature (with the Impramatur) which explicitly stated that
people need to 'shape up' at least a bit before being able to come
to Christ for pardon. I have seen works explicitly stated as an
absolute necessity to the initial pardon of Christ. (I can supply
references if you'd like.) Of course, I could not embrace such
a position.
My understanding which certainly did not come to me, but rather
which came to two men named E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones in the
late 1800's is the following...
We are justified by faith and faith alone.
To be justified is to be made righteouss. That is it. Nothing
more to it than that.
The power is in the Word.
The part the Catholics didn't understand (I think) is that when
God says to someone "You are justified" that word, when received
by faith, ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES (MAKES RIGHTEOUSS) THAT PERSON.
Come to think of it, that would seem to be the thing Protes-
tantism has not understood.
There is no doubt that it all does not happen at once. But, God
accounts a person righteouss when the person first receives that
justifying word by faith and some cleansing has taken place. He
honors those first steps.
Check the life of Abraham. Look at Romans 4. It was said that
Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteouss-
ness and the reason why it was accounted to him for righteouss-
ness is because "he [Abraham] was fully convinced that what He
had promised [what His spoken word said] He was able to perform."
"Walk before Me and be blameless [perfect]."
Now, if you look at the life of Abraham, when he first had faith,
_he was not at this point of belief_. But, God accounts him righteouss
on partial basis of what He can make that faith become. Which is
to receive not just part of that justifying, cleansing word, but
all of it.
This all makes a lot of sense of the book of hebrews where clearly
there is a need for something to be accomplished in the last days.
(See Heb 11:39,40.)
A last generation validates the plan of redemption. (Justification
by faith.) They go all the way. They also believe God is fully
able who promised. They rest completely in Christ. The law is
written in the heart. Their faith pierces behind the veil. They
are able to inhabit Mount Zion. They indeed are made righteouss.
And not just the first steps, but the final ones.
Tony
|
| 522.30 | Lack of Interest Surprising | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jul 19 1994 17:22 | 35 |
| Hi,
I'm actually surprised that this is not sparking much
interest. The _truth_ (for the Bible says we are cleansed
by the word) that the same word which declares righteouss
is that same word that actually makes righteouss is (to me)
absolutely staggering.
It is nothing less than the missing link that fully harmonizes
the fundamental differences between the historical Protestant
and Catholic understandings of justification by faith.
That being:
Catholic:
One cannot be declared righteouss unless one actually is
righteouss.
Protestant:
When one responds to God by faith, one is justified.
Harmony:
The same word that accounts righteouss is the same word that
makes righteouss.
(Realizing the wrench that the word is not received in its
completeness all at once, BUT when one receives any of that
word by faith some justifying (cleansing) has really and
actually taken place.)
THIS IS BIG!!! ;-)
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 522.31 | New Creations | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Tue Jul 19 1994 17:45 | 25 |
| Jesus is the LIVING Word. The scriptures testify of the living Word.
When we receive Jesus we get ALL of Him. He gives us HIS
Righteousness, we are made Holy & Blameless in Him. We are made new
creatures (we are created "in Christ"). We are totally acceptable in
God's sight, not because of what we've done, but because of what He did
for us. The Living Word now lives in us (Gal. 2:20). When we are abiding
"in Christ" we will be producing the good works which we were created
for "in Christ" (Eph 2:8-10).
Which brings us back to Kent's question, "What is a good work?". I
believe anything which we are doing in the Spirit (in dependance upon
the Christ who lives within us) is a good work. Hence, cooking dinner
for my wife could be as much a good work as witnessing to someone in an
African jungle. God is concerned about the "method" more than the
results (ie Are we abiding in and depending on Him?). Bill Gilham
gives a great illustration of this in His book "Lifetime Guarantee).
Does that mean if I am not abiding in Him and hence not producing good
works, that I lose my salvation? NO! We are saved by His Grace. But
I will not be experiencing the joy that He has for me.
In His Love,
Bing
|
| 522.32 | no works before initial justification ... | KOLBE::eje | Eric James Ewanco | Tue Jul 19 1994 23:38 | 115 |
| Hi Tony,
Thanks for the reply. I, too, am surprised that this is not generating more
discussion, but perhaps people want to avoid division, or everyone's too
worried about their jobs. :-)
> Excellent reply! I think I agreed with much of it save serious
> disagreement with the very last paragraph which mentioned works
> as partial contribution of justification (even though as you
> mentioned, the works were really wrought by God).
Keep in mind that the deeds that we do can only contribute to our justification
_after_ we are initially justified. They cannot contribute to our initial
justification. Which brings me to ...
> My own study into this includes reading a fair amount of Catholic
> literature (with the Impramatur) which explicitly stated that
> people need to 'shape up' at least a bit before being able to come
> to Christ for pardon. I have seen works explicitly stated as an
> absolute necessity to the initial pardon of Christ. (I can supply
> references if you'd like.) Of course, I could not embrace such
> a position.
First, an imprimatur is good but it doesn't guarantee infallibility. Especially
nowadays. But anyway, what you read may not be wrong; but let me quote some
authoritative sources.
From the Council of Trent:
But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44]
these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted
unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that
we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the
beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all
justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to
come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be
justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede
justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.
For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says,
grace is no more grace.[46]
Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own
works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of
the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be
anathema.
Canon 2. If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given
for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to
merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do
both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.
Canon 3. If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the
Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be
repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be
bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
However, on the other hand, we must, enabled and moved by God's grace, be
responsive to that grace:
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114]
meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the
grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be
prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Canon 4. If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by
God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward
disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that
it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something
inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be
anathema.
So you see, all is dependent upon God's grace, but not all is dependent upon
faith alone, if by that it is meant that one need not also have love for God
and a responsive will. God's grace moves to free our will from the bondage
it is in, and enables us to assent to His call. Justification is a free gift,
indeed, but a gift can be accepted or rejected without thereby nullifying the
fact that it is a gift, and especially so when God's grace enables us to accept
or reject it.
> To be justified is to be made righteouss. That is it. Nothing
> more to it than that.
In this much I wholeheartedly agree.
> The power is in the Word.
> The part the Catholics didn't understand (I think) is that when
> God says to someone "You are justified" that word, when received
> by faith, ACTUALLY JUSTIFIES (MAKES RIGHTEOUSS) THAT PERSON.
ugh ... we are justified indeed by the Word, but by God the Word, who has made
us holy by cleansing us by "the washing with water through the word" (Eph 5:26
NIV), that is, the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Tit 3:5
NIV). It is not through the hearing of the Gospel that the Word makes us
righteous, but through the washing of regeneration, in which the Word Himself
dwells. [However one might suppose that is accomplished.] But I agree that we
are actually made righteous, as opposed to merely being declared (or
pronounced) righteous.
But the instrumental cause of justification is less important than what the
meaning of justification itself is.
The very word "justification" I have noticed in many circles becomes a kind of
jargon word, so much so that while everyone has heard of it and can tell you
what they believe about it, not too many people give much thought to what the
term itself _means._ Because it's not a common, everyday word, and because its
etymology is somewhat obscured by its orthography, the complex theological
issues behind what it means is glossed over. What I think happens over time is
that people get an incorrect understanding of what it means. They know it's a
good thing, and they know that before it they are unsaved and afterwards they
are saved, but beyond that, the word's a mystery. In fact, it often becomes
synonymous with salvation; while it plays an essential role in salvation, it is
not synonymous with salvation.
Eric
|
| 522.33 | Again: It is faith *only* -AND- it is works *only* | KALVIN::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Jul 20 1994 11:03 | 47 |
| I thought I presented it quite simply:
- That we are always justified before our Creator by faith only
- That we are always justified before all creation by works only
I can explain any pertinent scripture based on this principle, logically
reconcile any scripture with any other scripture based on the above principle,
and harmonize this principle with all other principles I know of.
I learned this principle from the late Dr. Walter Martin, who spent his
career battling the major pseudo-Christian cults, all of which teach
salvation by works to a greater or lesser degree, and whose adherents are
eager to quote scriptures from James in an attempt to prove their point.
The cross-post that I entered in 522.25 I originally wrote in the wake of
one of our historic debates with members of the Boston Church of Christ
over whether water baptism is necessary for salvation (they say it is.)
My note was intended to specifically answer their "act-of-faith" doctrine,
in which not only faith, but the resulting acts are necessary for
salvation (water baptism being one of them -- explained by them as not a
"work", but an "act of faith".
As I understand the teaching of the Roman and Anglican churches, based on
John Covert's and Eric Ewanco's contributions, faith and only faith
initially justifies you before God, but after that point of time, works also
keep you justified before God. I believe this is in contradiction to Romans
chapters 3-5, and Galatians, both written to existing believers.
In contrast, what I have presented works (no pun intended), besides being
quite simple and elegant in concept.
If the person(s) to whom we are justified are one and the same in Romans and
James, then the Apostle Paul and James contradict each other, for one cannot
be justified before one person by faith only, yet also by works. But if they
are different, there is no contradiction.
Abraham was justified before God based on his faith only and continued to be
justified before God based on his faith only. This is harmonious with Romans
4, which documents "righteousness apart from works", yet cites an example of
Abraham's faith which was not the first time he believed.
Abraham was justified before all creation based on his works only. It was
the angel who said to Abraham at Moriah, "Now I know that you fear God, because
you have...[actions described]" (Gen 22:12). Based on what Abraham did,
Abraham was justified before the angel. And his actions are a matter of
historical record in the scriptures, as a testimony to us (not God), that he
was a man of faith.
|
| 522.34 | Backing Up Just A Step! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Jul 20 1994 12:37 | 5 |
| Hi Garth,
What is justification?
Tony
|
| 522.35 | justification: | KALVIN::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Jul 20 1994 16:20 | 8 |
| Re: .34 (Tony)
> What is justification?
justify (v.) 1. To demonstrate to be just, right, or valid. 2. To provide
sound reasons for; warrant. 3. To declare free of blame; absolve.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
|
| 522.36 | Inadequate and incomplete list of meanings | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 20 1994 16:26 | 8 |
| >(American Heritage Dictionary)
Try the G.C. Merriam Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary;
be sure you look up both justification and justify, and read all of the
definitions, and remember that language changes over time, but the Word
of God remains the same.
/john
|
| 522.37 | Which Applies to Justification By Faith? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Jul 20 1994 16:59 | 9 |
| re: .35
Garth,
Which definition do you believe is the correct one where
it applies to the Biblical doctrine of justification by
faith?
Tony
|
| 522.38 | To Garth | NACAD::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Wed Jul 20 1994 17:27 | 84 |
| Garth,
> I thought I presented it quite simply:
>
> - That we are always justified before our Creator by faith only
> - That we are always justified before all creation by works only
Indeed you did present it simply, but I simply think you are wrong. Your
attempts to link the justification of James to justification before men and not
God are tenuous at best. Nor do I think your explanation reconciles all the
appropriate Scriptures.
I would first point out that nowhere in Scripture does Paul or anyone else say
that we are justified by faith alone -- the only place the phrase occurs is in
James, when the doctrine is condemned. Since it is never taught in Scripture,
there is no need to reconcile it with James -- it is simply a condemned
doctrine.
But how do I reconcile what remains of the apparent difference between Paul and
James? First of all, I point out that Paul is writing against Judaizers, and
James is writing against Gentiles. Context is key here. Let's look at what
they address: Paul's whole Romans polemic must be understood is proving that
justification cannot be attained under the MOSAIC LAW -- he is contrasting the
old covenant with the new covenant, and refuting those who are backsliding into
Judaistic tendencies. And so he emphasizes that justification is by faith in
Christ, and not observance of the law. That is, the MOSAIC LAW. Paul is NOT
arguing that we need not repent, he is NOT arguing that we do not need to also
have hope and love as well as faith, he is NOT arguing that we need not bear
Gospel fruit in order to be saved.
James, on the other hand, does not write to an audience tempted to Judaizing,
but rather to an audience inclined to sloth and hedonism -- former pagans. He
tells them that they are justified not only by faith, but also -- not by the
Mosaic law -- but by faithfully living out the Gospel in love. This ties in
with what St. John says in his epistles, that he who loves God, obeys God, and
loves his neighbor -- a love that manifests itself in deeds of charity towards
one's neighbor.
1 John 2:3: "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.
The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and
the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is truly
made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to
live in him must walk as Jesus did."
1 John 3:10: "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the
children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child
of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."
1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love
our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.. Anyone who hates
his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in
him. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material
possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the
love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but
with actions and in truth."
Even St. Paul alludes to this: Gal 5:6 says, "For in Christ Jesus, neither
circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is
faith expressing itself through love." (All quotes NIV) And so faith is of no
value unless it is expressed through love, and love must be expressed in deed
as well as word. Not deeds of the Law, but deeds of Gospel love.
And so there is no contradiction between James and Paul, because Paul is
refuting the Judaizing idea of justification, apart from faith, by works of the
Mosaic law, and James is refuting the idea that faith which does not express
itself through Christian love has any power to justify. There is no reason to
reconcile justification by faith alone with James, because Paul never teaches
the latter: he teaches justification by faith expressed through love. Finally,
we must recognize the strong, passionate statements of Paul and James as being
directed to those they are attempting to refute, and not remove these
statements from the context they reside in and attempt to apply them to other
things: for example, assuming that Paul is saying that we need not have love
and hope as well as faith in order to be justified, or that repentance from sin
is not necessary in order to be reconciled with God.
Finally, I am sure both Catholics and Protestants can agree that all relies on
God's grace, and that ultimately all our good deeds are due to Him and all the
works which we can do redound to His glory, and depend on His grace and mercy.
Perhaps some of you folks can explain the meaning of the Scripture, "Above all,
love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." (1 Peter
4:8) And again, "Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him
from death and cover over a multitude of sins." (James 5:20)
|
| 522.39 | Eric... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Jul 20 1994 17:55 | 116 |
| I know you wrote .38 for Garth, Eric, but if you don't mind, I'd like to
share just a few thoughts.
>I would first point out that nowhere in Scripture does Paul or anyone else say
>that we are justified by faith alone -- the only place the phrase occurs is in
>James, when the doctrine is condemned. Since it is never taught in Scripture,
>there is no need to reconcile it with James -- it is simply a condemned
>doctrine.
My understanding of the Scriptures is different than this. In fact, it
seems very clear to me that Romans (as well as Ephesians and Galatians and
many other letters) makes it very clear that we are saved by grace through
faith, not by works, therefore, there is no room for boasting.
I do not fully understand Garth's position so I can't speak to it, but I
have to disagree with your premise that Scripture never says we are
justified by faith alone. Someone with an on-line concordance could
easily extract scores of verses that contradict your premise.
>But how do I reconcile what remains of the apparent difference between Paul and
>James? First of all, I point out that Paul is writing against Judaizers, and
>James is writing against Gentiles. Context is key here. Let's look at what
>they address: Paul's whole Romans polemic must be understood is proving that
>justification cannot be attained under the MOSAIC LAW -- he is contrasting the
>old covenant with the new covenant, and refuting those who are backsliding into
>Judaistic tendencies.
I agree that he is arguing against the practice of Judaizing, but I
strongly disagree with your notion that he's contrasting the old with the
new (as if to imply there were two methods of salvation) or Jewish
practices (unless by "Judaistic" you mean "Judaizing", which is, oddly
enough, a works-based 'gospel' which Paul condemns - you'll remember his
quote wishing that the circumcision faction, i.e., Judaizers, would 'go all
the way'...).
Paul argues quite convingly (Romans 4, I believe) that salvation is by
faith alone and while so doing, proves that:
a) the Torah was never meant to be the method of salvation (though
it indeed serves other purposes), and
b) Abra(ha)m was justified by faith before circumcision was a sign
of the covenant and before the Torah was given on Sinai.
Paul doesn't argue against the Jewish faith, nor does he imply that there
was one method of salvation "then" and a different one "now"; rather, he
argues that salvation has always been and will always be by faith and faith
alone.
His argument against the Judaizers is fascinating. The practice of
"Judaizing" was to tell a Gentile that in order to be saved, he first had
to become Jewish (and therefore, observe the Torah) in order to be
considered righteous. That works-based 'gospel' is soundly condemned, not
only on its own merit, but also because it perverts what Torah's true
purpose and function are.
No one was ever saved by the law, pre- or post-Yeshua.
>he is NOT arguing that we need not bear Gospel fruit in order to be saved.
In order to be saved?
My understanding of Scripture suggests that fruit will only be borne by the
saved (i.e., the order is, get saved, produce fruit - all by His grace,
BTW). One doesn't bear fruit in order *to be* saved. At least, I would
like to see a Scriptural argument to support such a notion; I know of none
(and to be clear, I don't hold myself out as a Bible scholar - I'm willing
to learn...).
>James, on the other hand, does not write to an audience tempted to Judaizing,
Again, I'm no bible scholar, but didn't James write to the dispersed Jewish
believers? I'll have to check some notes.
>1 John 3:10: "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the
>children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child
>of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother."
Interesting point. This is a way to weed out the false brother from among
the true. It is not a Scripture that supports the notion that one must
bear fruit in order to be saved. It does, however, strongly suggest (to
me, anyway) that those who are saved should (and do, by faith) bear fruit
that is consistent with G-d's character; i.e., love.
>Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but
>with actions and in truth."
Right. In other words, it's fine to say "I'm a believer" - now, what's
different about your life that will prompt the questions for which you
should be prepared to give a reasoned response (ref. Peter & James)?
True believers will bear the fruit He grows....that does not at all imply
(let alone create the doctrine) that one must bear fruit in order to be
saved. One must believe in order to be saved, and as a believer, one must
bear fruit. Now I'd point you to Gal 2:20 and ask, who's responsible for
the growth of the fruit?
Without *faith* (not without fruit, not without works, but without FAITH)
it is impossible to please G-d.
>Even St. Paul alludes to this: Gal 5:6 says, "For in Christ Jesus, neither
>circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is
>faith expressing itself through love." (All quotes NIV) And so faith is of no
>value unless it is expressed through love, and love must be expressed in deed
>as well as word. Not deeds of the Law, but deeds of Gospel love.
You pose an opposition between deeds of the Law and those of the Gospel of
love. What is unloving about the commands of G-d in the first place?
>...all relies on God's grace, and that ultimately all our good deeds are
>due to Him and all the works which we can do redound to His glory, and
>depend on His grace and mercy.
Agreed.
Steve
|
| 522.40 | His Life in Us | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Wed Jul 20 1994 18:59 | 25 |
| I totally agree with Steve. The ORDER of things is crucial. We are
saved by grace. We are made righteous by Christ. We can't add to or
take away from that by our behavior. It is by JESUS and Him alone that
we are reconciled to God. It is NOT Jesus PLUS anything. It is simply
Jesus. We are changed by Christ. This inner change should produce
outward results, but the outward change has nothing to do with our
justification or righteousness before God. It's what Christ has done,
not what we do. We have been freed from the law to walk in Christ. If
it was anything but Christ alone, how good would we have to be to be
good enough?
I believe the "Faith without works is dead" statement has more to say
about whether we are experiencing the LIFE of Jesus, than whether we
are justified. If we choose to walk in our own strength, depending on our
own abilities, we will lack the true joy and fullness of life that the
heavenly Father wants us to experience. If we choose to depend on Christ
to be our strength and abide in Him moment by moment, we will be
be experiencing His LIFE and will produce righteous acts. Again, I
believe that the order is the key.
Love in Him,
Bing
|
| 522.41 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Jul 20 1994 19:25 | 24 |
| I wish I had more time than to just skim.
The thoughts that come to my mind are "making one's election sure" (for
the Calvinists, primarily) and "working out one's salvation."
No amount of works will save a person, but a saved person will demonstrate
his salvation by bearing the fruit of salvation. I can't help but wonder
if you people are actually strenuously agreeing, but from different semantical
perspectives.
Whatever you do or don't do, God will be the author and finisher and will
complete the work he has begun in you. This may be through some of the
things we do and experience (growth through trial, for example) and so
for our part, *we* do or experience things that help to complete the work
begun in us and that help to finish our faith.
Hebrews 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.
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Mark
|
| 522.42 | | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Wed Jul 20 1994 19:52 | 17 |
| >No amount of works will save a person, but a saved person will
>demonstrate his salvation by bearing the fruit of salvation. I can't help
>but wonder if you people are actually strenuously agreeing, but from
>different semantical perspectives.
To me it's the difference of between 1) working FOR God, trying to earn His
acceptance and 2) allowing Him to live His life through me, knowing that
I'm am totally accepted because of what He has done for me (He's
already accomplished everything to reconcile me with God). The first
one will lead to burnout or defeat, the second to a life of freedom and
victory. Eric's last paragraph seemed more like the second, but the
statement about justification being a combination between faith and
works seemed more like the first.
In His love,
Bing
|
| 522.43 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Jul 20 1994 19:59 | 1 |
| Sounds like clarification may be just around the corner, Bing. :-)
|
| 522.44 | two sides of the same coin | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Wed Jul 20 1994 20:03 | 17 |
|
Re .41 MM
Right Mark, fish swim, cows moo, the righteous love their fellow man and
do good works because its their nature to do so.
"God is love (agape) and he who abides in love abides in God and God in him"
"But whoever has this world's goods and sees his brother in need and shuts
up his heart from him, how does the love (agape) of God abide in Him?"
"If someone says 'I love (agape) God' and hates his brother, he is a liar,
for he who does not love (agape) his brother whom he has seen, how can he
love God whom he has not seen?" I John.
Hank D
|
| 522.45 | Questions | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Jul 20 1994 20:43 | 19 |
| Hi,
If to justify is to be made righteouss (which I believe it
is), is the work of justifying equivalent to the work (by
Jesus Christ) of actually renovating the human heart?
And if it is, does any 'work' we do contribute to the work
of Christ in changing the heart? No, its entirely a divine
work. I can only consent for Christ to perform it and my
consent is _faith_.
Is there any justification outside of God actually changing
the heart?
Is there any merit to the explanation of Abraham's right standing
before God in Romans 4? I refer to his believing God was able
who promised.
Tony
|
| 522.46 | justification: | KALI::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Jul 20 1994 21:09 | 21 |
| Re: .36 (John Covert)
> -< Inadequate and incomplete list of meanings >-
>
>>(American Heritage Dictionary)
>
>Try the G.C. Merriam Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary;
>be sure you look up both justification and justify, and read all of the
>definitions, and remember that language changes over time, but the Word
>of God remains the same.
Not necessary. I am the author of reply .25 and reply .33. All you need
do is ask me what I mean by "justify", like Tony did, and I will tell you
that the American Heritage Dictionary will suffice.
As far as the scriptures are concerned, in the context of James and Romans,
which we are discussing, "justify" is used interchangeably with "considered
righteous", as in "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness." (Gen 15:6).
Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. Doesn't it to you?
|
| 522.47 | Bearing fruit | NACAD::EWANCO | Eric James Ewanco | Wed Jul 20 1994 22:22 | 110 |
| > My understanding of the Scriptures is different than this. In fact, it
> seems very clear to me that Romans (as well as Ephesians and Galatians and
> many other letters) makes it very clear that we are saved by grace through
> faith, not by works, therefore, there is no room for boasting.
I can certainly agree with this statement, although probably not in the way
you meant it. It illustrates the different perspectives in looking at
Scripture: you see it as saying that we are saved with absolutely no regard for
anything other than faith, I see it as being saved by grace through faith
working in love, bearing the good fruit which Christ expects of us, and a
refutation of salvation by our own works apart from grace and faith.
> but I have to disagree with your premise that Scripture never says we are
> justified by faith alone. Someone with an on-line concordance could
> easily extract scores of verses that contradict your premise.
I have already done this, which is why I can make the statement. Paul very
often says "We are justified by faith," but never "We are justified by faith
_alone_". If he did say this, it would not have been necessary for Martin
Luther to add the word "alone" to his (mis)translation of Romans.
> I agree that he is arguing against the practice of Judaizing, but I
> strongly disagree with your notion that he's contrasting the old with the
> new (as if to imply there were two methods of salvation) or Jewish
> practices (unless by "Judaistic" you mean "Judaizing", which is, oddly
> enough, a works-based 'gospel' which Paul condemns - you'll remember his
> quote wishing that the circumcision faction, i.e., Judaizers, would 'go all
> the way'...).
OK, I can go with this. The Mosaic Covenant was never meant to be a works-
based covenant, nor was there a different method of salvation then than
there is now.
Would you agree, then, that everything that the Old Testament says about
the doctrine of salvation equally applies to Christians?
>>he is NOT arguing that we need not bear Gospel fruit in order to be saved.
> In order to be saved?
> My understanding of Scripture suggests that fruit will only be borne by the
> saved (i.e., the order is, get saved, produce fruit - all by His grace,
> BTW). One doesn't bear fruit in order *to be* saved. At least, I would
> like to see a Scriptural argument to support such a notion; I know of none
> (and to be clear, I don't hold myself out as a Bible scholar - I'm willing
> to learn...).
Let's consider the Scriptures.
Hebrews 6:7 "Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces
a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But
the land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of
being cursed. In the end it will be burned." (v. 7-8)
Luke 3:7: "John said to the crowds coming to be baptized by him, 'You brood of
vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in
keeping with repentance. . . The ax is already at the root of the trees, and
every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into
the fire.' 'What shall we do then?' the crowd asked. John answered, 'The man
with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food
should do the same.' Tax collectors also came to be baptized. 'Teacher,' they
asked, 'what should we do?' 'Don't collect any more than you are required
to,' he told them. Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He
replied, 'Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with
your pay.'"
John 15:5: "I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I
in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone
does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers;
such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in
me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given
you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing
yourselves to be my disciples."
Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to
the end will be saved."
1 Tim 4:15f: "Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so
that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your
hearers."
See also Matt 3:10.
There is much imagery in Scripture of the destruction of those who do not bear
fruit; and much of it, such as John 15:5 above, does imply that it is possible
for those who have been in Christ but who have not remained in Christ to not be
saved in the end.
Scripture does not exclusively speak of "being saved" as a one-time event.
"Being saved" is something which happens at our judgment, as well as at our
justification, as the above Scriptures show.
I think Scripture portrays salvation not as a matter of a one-time decision,
but as a matter of remaining in Christ until the end, drinking in the grace
which he gives us, cooperating with His work in us, and being fruit. Those who
do remain in Christ, cooperating with His will and responding to His grace,
will be saved. Those who do not remain in Christ, either by serious
unrepentant sin or by turning away from God's grace and life, even though they
may have been in Christ as one point, will be burnt up and destroyed in the
end. It must always be remembered that God grants us all the grace we need to
be saved, and all we need to do is respond to it. It must also be remembered
that our whole life and all that we do is first a work of God. But we, in our
free will, cooperate in this work, and so it is in a secondary sense our own
work as well, but it is all dependent on God's grace. What is required for us
to be saved in the end is not to meet some minimum requirements of deeds
performed, but only to cooperate with God's grace, conforming our will to His,
and allowing His grace to bear fruit in what we do.
Eric
|
| 522.48 | a short question... | KOLBE::eje | Eric James Ewanco | Wed Jul 20 1994 22:30 | 9 |
| Steve (or Garth),
A quick but direct comment:
You say that we are justified by faith alone. Would it follow to you, then,
that we are saved by faith alone, and if so, would you agree that we can be
saved apart from hope and love, since we are saved by faith alone?
Eric
|
| 522.49 | The Tree of Life | VERVAN::FYFE | I have much more to tell you... | Thu Jul 21 1994 07:50 | 31 |
|
To me, the grafting to the Tree is the best analogy.
When we accept Christ through faith we are grafted to the Tree (His
Body) this is the initial 'justification'. By being grafted to the
Tree we receive the life giving juice to grow (grace) and as we
grow we bear fruit, some bear much fruit, some bear little. But
those who do not bear any fruit whither and die and are pruned or
cut off from the Tree.
This is not through any fault of the Tree but that the grafted
branch did not correspond with the life of grace the fruits of love
flowing into it.
Which is why it is a lifelong event it is not a onetime thing - I
believe therefore I am saved - wrong. You will run the race, fight
the good fight, grow into a mature beautiful branch where the birds
of the air find their rest and shelter, where the fruits of love
abound through cooperation in the graces bestowed upon you.
However at any time during your life when winter comes in your life
for example and you reject the life in you, you will wither up and
die and be cut off from the Tree.
If I do good works and give away all my possessions and look after
the poor and needy but not have Love then it is for nothing. For in
all people I see Christ in whom I move and have my being he is my
Tree.
Peace,
Tom
|
| 522.50 | Parable of the Wheat and Tares | MIMS::CASON_K | | Thu Jul 21 1994 12:51 | 20 |
| I like Eric's examples of the imagery used in Scripture. I may have
missed it but let me add this one to the list. Jesus told the parable
of the wheat and the tares. The master sowed good seed but his enemy
came along right behind and sowed tares among the wheat. The servants
offered to go out and pull up the tares and thus clear the field but
the master said that they should wait until harvest time and then
separate the two, the tares into the fire and the wheat into the barn.
A tare is what we would call today a bearded darnel. It is very
similar to wheat as it grows. As a shoot it is almost
indistinguishable from the wheat. The difference is most pronounced at
harvest time when you can see that the wheat bears fruit but the tares do
not. There's a lot more around the imagery of the tares but this will
suffice for this discussion. The master was concerned that some of the
wheat would be damaged or destroyed if the servants purged the field
before harvest. My question is this:
Did the wheat bear fruit in order to be the masters crop or did they
bear fruit because of the seed that was sown and it was their nature to
do so?
|
| 522.51 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Jul 21 1994 14:39 | 41 |
| re: .48
Hi Eric,
I've extracted .47 and will respond to that in a more detailed manner.
For now, I just wanted to say thanks for the note, I'm looking forward
to the discussion...
As for .48; what an intriguing question!
I'd say that, as we know, these three remain, faith, hope, and love -
and the greatest of these is love.
Consider that *this* is how we know G-d loves us; that He died for us
while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:8, I believe). Also, the famous John
3:16....I learned that the word "so" in that quote doesn't mean
"intensity" (i.e., G-d loved the world so intensely that He gave His
unique Son....), but means "in this manner" (i.e., John 3:16 & Romans
5:8 say the exact same thing....G-d loved the world in this manner;
that He gave His unique Son....).
Indeed, the greatest is love, His love - without it, the question of
salvation would be moot.
Then consider hope; we have the blessed hope of His soon return - also
borne out of His love. We'll be joined with Him forever, as His
beloved bride without spot or blemish....good heavens!!!! No pun
intended at all here, but the word that comes to mind is pure rapture!
Saved by faith apart from hope and love? How can I answer that?
By His gift of faith, we are saved - our trust is in the One who is
Faithful and Trustworthy. He has demonstrated His unspeakable love for
us and given us eternal hope.
Great question....even greater L-rd!
This was fun :-)
Steve
|
| 522.53 | Re: .48 - Different Faiths Eric | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jul 21 1994 16:39 | 80 |
| re: .48
Hi Eric,
This is in reference to asking if we are saved by faith alone
to the exclusion of hope and love.
The primary thing is the fact that scripture discusses at least
two different 'faiths.'
1 Corin 13:13
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest
of these is love.
Look back at vs 2
...and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing.
This reminds me of when Jesus spoke of fallen angels who believe
and tremble (I believe that's what he says), but their belief
does not save.
It would seem there are two ways to go with this. One way is to
believe that in all these cases, belief/faith are virtually
identical and thus it is possible to dissect from the experience
of the heart love, hope, and faith. That is to say that it is
possible that the heart can have love (agape) and perhaps not
faith or faith and perhaps not love.
I don't think this way holds up to scripture.
The other way is to believe that scripture includes speaking of
_different kinds of faith/belief_. This would seem to hold up
for 1 Corin 13 just mentioned having faith and yet no love and
Jesus did say fallen angels believe.
AND the Bible also says
Galatians 5:5,6
For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of right-
eoussness by faith.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision
avails anything, but faith working through love.
We know that righteoussness is equivalent to love. To live a
life of righteoussness is to live a life of love for righteouss-
ness is equated to the law (Isaiah 51:7) and love is the end of
the law (Romans somewhere).
There is a faith which is intellectual assent only. The fallen
angels intellectually believe there is a God. But, their belief
does not work by God's love as that faith as described in Gal
5:6 does. There is no selfless motive there.
But, there is another faith, indeed the one I believe that is the
only one relevent to the topic here (justification by faith) which
has as part of its characteristic, a heart-response to a revelation
of divine love. We see allusions to this everywhere in scripture.
Gal 5:6 or believing in God being linked to seeing Christ lifted
up (John 3:16) or hearing of faith being linked to Christ portrayed
as crucified (Gal 3:1). All of these are a faith which includes the
heart being warmed in appreciation to a revelation of the crucified
Saviour.
Of THIS faith, RIGHTEOUSSNESS comes. Of this faith, Christ is
permitted to install His character, His love. And when that love
is there, so is hope.
Thus, Eric, the problem with your reply is that you fail to
recognize two different faiths being discussed and had you
recognized that, it would be apparent that with the faith of
which righteoussness comes,
faith, love, and hope must all be there.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 522.54 | "apart from hope and love" | KALI::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Jul 21 1994 16:42 | 18 |
| Re: .48 (Eric)
>Steve (or Garth),
>
>A quick but direct comment:
>
>You say that we are justified by faith alone. Would it follow to you, then,
>that we are saved by faith alone, and if so, would you agree that we can be
>saved apart from hope and love, since we are saved by faith alone?
We are saved through faith in the completed work of God on our behalf. He
who has faith will consequently have hope in the promises of God yet to be
revealed, and he who has faith will choose to love (agape).
We are saved through faith alone, but you cannot seperate true faith from
the hope and love that result, since faith without works is dead. Yet the
resultant hope and love do not contribute to our salvation or justification
before God.
|
| 522.55 | the other end of the spectrum | KALI::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Thu Jul 21 1994 16:47 | 19 |
| By the way, I ought to give equal time to criticizing some contemporary
"evangelical" dogma, which errs on the other end of the spectrum.
We are expected by some to consider a person justified based on their mere
declaration of "faith" apart from works. I thank God for His word through
James and John's epistles, which exposes this as shortsightedness.
It is far more revealing to look at what a person does, since the tongue is
capable of all sorts of boasting, and talk is cheap.
Even the Apostle Paul says "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the
faith" (2 Cor 13:5). Note that he does not say "examine the promises of
God...", and that his statement is in the context of exhortations concerning
all sorts of things that people do: "quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger,
factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder..., impurity, sexual sin and
debauchery in which they have indulged" (2 Cor 12:20-21).
Again, we are justified by faith before God, and by works before all of
creation.
|
| 522.56 | To Be Made Righteouss | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Jul 21 1994 16:58 | 23 |
| re: -1
Hi Garth,
I pretty much knew where a major point of disagreement might
be between your understanding and mine.
To be justified is to be made righteouss.
The work of justification is 100% the work of Christ. And that
work is the making righteouss of the heart.
I believe the 'made righteouss' heart is our justification. It
is only what it is by faith and the work is completely Christ's.
I am not referring to a single work that arises as a result of
the heart being changed, I am referring exclusively to the
changed heart itself.
The entire work of justification is the restoration of the heart
back to the image of God.
Tony
|
| 522.57 | He died Once for All | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Thu Jul 21 1994 17:24 | 67 |
| >I think Scripture portrays salvation not as a matter of a one-time
>decision, but as a matter of remaining in Christ until the end, drinking in
>the grace which he gives us, cooperating with His work in us, and being
>fruit. Those who do remain in Christ, cooperating with His will and
>responding to His grace, will be saved. Those who do not remain in Christ,
>either by serious unrepentant sin or by turning away from God's grace and
>life, even though they may have been in Christ as one point, will be burnt
>up and destroyed in the end.
Eric,
I interpret John 15 (from the context its written in) to mean something
different from losing ones salvation. Jesus is talking about Abiding
(depending on, or remaining in) in Him. I read this to say that any
works which we do on our own, apart from abiding in Christ will be
worthless. Its only the fruit which He produces through us that will
be worth anything in God's view.
Let me present a hypothetical situation and apply to the paragraph
which I referenced. A person by faith accepts the free gift of grace
which the Father offers to all. The person walks with the Lord for two
years. Is he saved? Yes. The person gets involved (innocently at
first) in an extra-marital affair. Has the person lost his salvation
(if he were to die at that point, would he be separated from the Father
forever)? Is God shocked that this person could act this way? OK, so
the person repents of his sin and abides in Christ again. Is he now
RE-reborn?
Someone earlier talked about the nature of a dog to bark and the nature
of a Christian to produce righteousness. Taking it further, a
catapiller takes on a new nature when it becomes a butterfly. If the
butterfly occasionally forgets that it is a butterfly and tries to
crawl around on the ground, does that make it a catapiller. No, the
butterfly is a butterfly. Similarly, when a person by faith invites
Christ to take control of his life, he is made a new creature (II Cor
5:17). Several scriptures talk about the the old nature being dead
(Gal 2:20, Rom 6). If the old nature is dead and Christ now lives in
me, can the old nature be brought back to life (or the new creature
being changed back into the old creature)?
I believe in the situation I presented above, that the person is not
acting according to his new nature when he becomes involved in an
extra-marital affair. This does not negate what Christ has done for
the person or change his new nature. The person is simply not acting
like who he/she really is. I also don't see where God classifies sin
in levels. God is totally Holy. ANY sin is an abomination to the
Lord (a critical spirit is just a much a sin as is sexual immorality).
He has fortunately declared us Not-guilty through His death on the
cross, once for all, the just for the unjust. It is through what He
has done for me that I am made acceptable. I can't add to it or take
away from it. This Not-guilty provision is not just for past sins, but
for present and future sin as well.
God did not stop at the cross however. He rose from the dead and not
only does He declare us Not-Guilty, but He comes to live in us. He
gives us a new nature. We can choose to live according to our flesh
(our old patterns of getting our needs met apart from God) or according
to the Spirit. If we are living according to the flesh we will not be
experiencing the fruits of the Spirit in our life, but it does not
negate what Christ did for us. God loves us with the love described in
I Cor 13. He desires for us to understand who we really are - in
Christ and to live according to our new nature, but He is patient with
us to grow in His grace.
Love in Christ,
Bing
|
| 522.58 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jul 21 1994 17:45 | 7 |
| .57
Bing,
That is exactly how I see the scripture as well. My Pastor taught a
series on "Abiding" and what it means. I can pull my notes out from
handly dandy sermon collector journal. :-) :-) [Mark knows me]
|
| 522.59 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Jul 21 1994 20:31 | 56 |
| > A person by faith accepts the free gift of grace
> which the Father offers to all. The person walks with the Lord for two
> years. Is he saved? Yes. The person gets involved (innocently at
> first) in an extra-marital affair. Has the person lost his salvation
> (if he were to die at that point, would he be separated from the Father
> forever)?
Say, is this the old "once saved, always saved" argument!?
Apart from the "innocently, at first" for which there is no such thing
as getting innocently involved in adultery - there comes a point at which
temptation is crossed into sin. And if the promptings of the Holy Spirit
continue to go unheeded to make things right, repent and seek forgiveness,
there also comes a time when the Holy Spirit is offended, being put off
for the final time, after which there is no forgiveness.
A person who was in the experience of salvation and then "innocently"
rebels against God's known laws (of love), and continues in it, can lose
their salvation.
The OSASers often demand to know at what point this occurs. Where is
the line between temptation and lust of the heart, for example? Where
is the moment a person loses his salvation? It is not a cop-out to say
that one cannot know where those lines of cross-over are, because there
are indeed lines of cross-over. The prodigal son was a DEAD son and a fat
lot of good it does to have an inheritance if you're dead. All it means
is that you HAD inheritance, not that you HAVE inheritance. If the
prodigal died in the far country, he would have continued to be dead to
his father.
>OK, so the person repents of his sin and abides in Christ again. Is he now
>RE-reborn?
Yeah, I know. We on the other side get teased with song, ye must be born
again and again and again. The answer is no. Salvation is NOT like a light
bulb of on-again and off-again existence. But, you certainly can be a dead
son. I believe this "re-reborn" is also a deflection, especially when you
consider the parable of the prodigal.
Luke 24:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and
is found. And they began to be merry.
Once alive, he became dead, but became alive again. The first life *as a
son* must be interpreted as being "born of the spirit" (in regards to this
analogy) because the prodigal is a son. And to quip that he was a son,
even in the far country, seems to deny that he was both "dead" and "lost"
and certainly not in fellowship and communion with the father.
So, can you tell I don't buy this -being saved bit then when I choose to
willfully rebel I'm still OKAY-? I'm still covered by my Spiritual Overdraft
Account. "It's okay, I was saved once." And I also don't buy the argument
that "perhaps they never really were saved" bit either. What I do buy is
that a son of the father can choose to part company and disinherit himself
of the family.
Mark
|
| 522.60 | Old argument that will probably never be resolved | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Thu Jul 21 1994 20:53 | 20 |
| Re .59
I think I explained my position about as well as I know how to. I
really don't care to get into a back and forth on this "old 'once
saved, always saved' argument" because I don't know that the
differences will ever be resolved.
I did want to explain my "innocently, at first" statement. It came
from a situation I was aware of where a married woman in our church got
involve with a married man in our church. As friends they started
walking for exercise together. This led to building a closer relationship,
and at some point resulted in unfaithfulness. I really believe the two
people involved here did not start out to get involved in an
extra-marital affair. Obviously this was not the wisest thing to do.
Maybe instead of innocent, I should have used "naive". BTW, both
people repented and are back with their families now. God's grace and
mercy never ceases.
Bing
|
| 522.61 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 12:54 | 43 |
| A familiar story, Bing, sorry to say. Naive; perhaps. I am certain that
many Christian people do not intend to go into a situation with the thought
of committing sin. And ignorance will bring us face to face with temptation.
But when a person "discovers" that they've moved into territory where they
know they shouldn't be, they then must choose right from wrong. At this
point, there is no excuses because INTENT is there to sin or to escape by
the way provided.
The church couple that builds a close relationship, on the surface, is fine,
until and unless that relationship overshadows the spousal relationship. This
is warning bell number 1! (If the marriage relationship needs counselling,
the close friend of the opposite sex is not the person to counsel one.)
But even if this is entered ignorantly, when attraction siezes one or the
other, and temptation and desire begin to take hold of the mind, this is
warning bell number 2! However, when these desires give way to lust or
even to activity, a clear choice is made against what is KNOWN to be WRONG.
"I know it's wrong but I just can't help myself." Well, no wonder since
I didn't heed the warning signs of the impending train wreck.
My point in .59 is that there comes a point when a person is faced with
a clear choice; they know it is wrong but proceed anyway. The prodigal
son knew it wasn't right to demand his inheritance before the appointed
time but did so anyway. And I am fairly certain that had that son gotten
to the horizon and turned back that the father would not have considered
any interruption in fellowship or sonship. However, the son in the story
clearly set out on his own, and the father considered him dead and lost -
never to partake of his father's inheritance - until the son "came to himself"
and recognized that he had "sinned against heaven and before thee,
and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired
servants." It was this recognition that brought the son back to the father;
this that *restored* the son to life again and being found again.
God is a loving father who watches for us to return and runs to us while
we are still a ways down the road, coming home. But God also does not
wink at willful sin, and allows the son to go his way, considering him
dead and lost. God is not willing that any should perish, but some do
and some will perish not because God made them to perish (for this would
contradict what the Scripture says), but because a person chooses to
reject God and what is known to be right, entering into sin and collecting
the wages of his folly.
Mark
|
| 522.62 | We are children of God | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Fri Jul 22 1994 14:57 | 40 |
| Mark,
I interpret the story of the prodigal son to be about lost people
coming to know Christ. There are 3 parables that are shared in Luke
15. Jesus shares these parables in response to His assoiciating with
sinners (receiving and eating with them). The first parable is about
the man leaving the 99 sheep to go and look for the 1 lost sheep. The
second is about the woman looking for her lost piece of silverware.
The third parable is about the prodigal son. I don't believe the
prodigal son relates to those who have received Christ. Its a picture
of those who are lost. The other brother is a picture of those who do
know Christ and how we relate to those who don't know Him.
I don't believe we cease to become children of God when we sin. Christ
has dealt with our sin. This doesn't excuse our sin. Paul deals with
this issue in Romans 6 in two different verses. In verses 1-2 he says,
"What shall we say then, are we to continue in sin that grace might
increase? May it never be. How shall we who died to sin continue in it?".
God loves us unconditionally. He has extended His grace to us. Rom
8:32 says (my paraphase) Even while we were yet sinners He died for us.
How much more, having been reconciled to God, will He freely give us
all things? I love my kids even in the midst of their rebellion or
disobedience. If I love my kids this way, how much more does God love
His children. God IS love. We love because God first loved us. I
believe that once we understand God's love for us and who we are in
Christ (His children) that it will change our attitudes and ultimately
our actions. We may not consider ourselves worthy to be God's children
(and we may not act like His children) but it doesn't change who we
are. We are His children (if we by faith have received Christ into our
lives John 1:12). I don't know of anything in scripture that says we
cease to become children of God. This should encourage us all the more to
trust Christ with our very lives. As Paul says, "To live IS Christ".
I guess I did have more to say, didn't I (see my last note)? 8^)
In His Love,
Bing
|
| 522.63 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 15:29 | 97 |
| ================================================================================
Note 522.62 ODIXIE::HUNT -< We are children of God >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe the prodigal son relates to those who have received
> Christ. Its a picture of those who are lost. The other brother is a
> picture of those who do know Christ and how we relate to those who don't
> know Him.
Well this doesn't synch up with me, Bing. Brother and son imply a
specific relationship. The sons were sons before the event. How can one
brother be one who knows Christ and the other be one who is lost?
Further, to be lost is to once have a bearing. (In evangelical circles,
we believe in an age of accountability so the bearing is covewred by
grace before this - another topic.)
> I don't believe we cease to become children of God when we sin.
I don't believe being a "child of God" as in the claim means that we're
covered.
Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin
not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say
unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham.
And what do you make of these verses?
1 John 3:7-10 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth
righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth
sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this
purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of
the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this
the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth
not his brother.
> This doesn't excuse our sin. Paul deals with
> this issue in Romans 6 in two different verses. In verses 1-2 he says,
> "What shall we say then, are we to continue in sin that grace might
> increase? May it never be. How shall we who died to sin continue in it?".
You said it. How shall we who died to sin continue to sin every day in
word, thought and deed? The answer is that we shall not continue to
sin!! ("And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not
for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:1-2)
*IF* any man sin... we have an advocate.
> I love my kids even in the midst of their rebellion or disobedience.
So do I, but my hands are tied if they reject me and choose to never heed
my voice - to return, for example. God is also unconditionally just.
I certainly don't punish my kid for accidentally spilling the milk. but
if the milk is spilt willfully, punishment is just.
> If I love my kids this way, how much more does God love His children.
And if God allows people to choose hell, does this make Him unjust and
any less loving?
> God IS love.
Yes, He is!
> We love because God first loved us. I believe that once we
> understand God's love for us and who we are in Christ (His children) that
> it will change our attitudes and ultimately our actions.
That's right, and willful sin is not part of the attitude of a living
child of God; it is the response of someone returning to their vomit.
> I don't know of anything in scripture that says we cease to become
> children of God. This should encourage us all the more to trust Christ
> with our very lives. As Paul says, "To live IS Christ".
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the
sons of God.
Sonship *IS* conditional. God's love is unconditionally provided to us
conditioned on our faith, our belief, and the leading (following) of the
Spirit You may not find a piece of Scripture that says we cease to
become sons (discounting the prodigal son story interpretation as you do)
but Scripture does say that sons of God don't sin. And when you say that
if we sin, we're still sons of God, I have a problem with that, because
the Bible says to me that as a son of God *IF* I sin, I have an ADVOCATE
*of which I need to avail myself, repenting of my sin and be restored to
my position as adopted son.*
Mark
|
| 522.64 | | ODIXIE::HUNT | | Fri Jul 22 1994 16:12 | 31 |
| >Further, to be lost is to once have a bearing.
Again, the parables that Jesus shared in Luke 15 are in response to
people who were questioning the fact that He was receiving and eating
with sinners. By sinner I interpret this to be folks who had no
evidence of a relationship (or previous relationship with God), such as
the tax collectors, woman who had five husband, woman caught in adultry
, ect. As in, I once was lost but now am found (from "Amazing Grace").
I believe the purpose of the parables was to show us how we need to be
treating those who don't know God.
One final word and I'm through. I am not saying that we shouldn't be
righteous in our behavior. We should. If we are Christians, its our
nature to produce righteous acts. I do believe that it is only through
His grace that we are saved, however. We can never be righteous enough
to earn our salvation, or to KEEP it, outside of God's grace for us. It is
by what He did for us, not by what we do. I believe the "Once saved always
saved" ties in very closely with the fact that it is only through His grace
that we are saved. If you believe we can lose our salvation, then it
seems to me that its some manner of God's grace plus some portion of our
works by which we're saved.
Now, I believe we CAN agree on the following. Christ has made us new
creature in Christ. He desires us fill our mind with truth. He
desires that we consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God. He
desires that we present ourselves as insturments of righteousness to
God.
Love in Him,
Bing
|
| 522.65 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jul 22 1994 16:13 | 45 |
| As most of you know my testimony, there was a period of time after my
salvation that I quit church, quit praying, quit reading the Bible. I
lived my life as one who as of the world. It was during this time that
I met and married Rafael who was unsaved.
Now, the question is did I enjoy my life in the world? Did I feel
truly a part of it? Was I hardened to the Spirit of God?
The answers to these questions are simple and complicated. The truth
is sin is pleasant "for a season". But when you are a child of God,
born again, the Spirit of God convicts you about that sin. I can
honestly say that I was convicted about my sin... even though in
rebellion. The conviction would come and that feeling in the knot of
my stomach would clamp down. But I would "find something to do" to
change the direction of my thoughts. I couldn't look at churches when
I passed by them and I hated those darn "Honk if you love Jesus" bumper
stickers! :-)
I knew I was a child of God and my life of rebellion only provided me
with temporary happiness [I almost wrote insanity :-)]. If God's
Spirit had left me completely in my rebellion, I don't believe I would
have been drawn back into the fold. There was no crisis in my life that
brought me back to Christ. I became pregnant, this was not a crisis to
me, I wanted that baby with every fibre of my soul.
It was the awareness of the eternal soul of my child that brought me
back to Christ.
I don't believe that if I died while in my rebellion that I'd have gone
to hell. I believe that I'd have gone to heaven. Why? Because God is
the author and finisher of our faith. He is able to let no man pluck
me out of his hand, not even myself.
While many may not agree with this, I believe this deeply in my heart.
Once you are His, you are His. And as long as you don't renounce him
as your Savior, choose to reject that which you have chosen, then the
sin in your life does not separate you from God. I believe there is
one way to lose your salvation and I've stated it in the previous
paragraph. While I also believe coincides with grieving the Spirit of
God.
Preaching a fragile salvation is at best calling God weak, imho.
In His Love,
Nancy
|
| 522.66 | Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jul 22 1994 16:48 | 30 |
| Hi,
Boy, I wish this had stayed with justification by faith!
Separate topic perhaps?
On free will/predestination/osas
Nance, the flip side to your 'weak God' reasoning is the
reasoning implied by a God who fastens condemnation for some
and salvation for others. And that flip side imho, is an
evil God. God did not come to condemn the world. Period.
The condemnation is inherent to sin.
Yeah, its a mystery that some would choose sin, but the record
states that even he who was a covering cherub and who saw the
glory of God and thus His constraining love to a level that I
would hazard to guess none of us yet has, could leave Him forever.
I do not believe God fastened Satan's condemnation. Somehow
Satan did. Somehow, he chose sin to God.
So am I shocked with the notion that people may do the same?
No.
Many are called (elected), but few are chosen (choose God).
But, I'd much rather talk about justification by faith!!
Tony
|
| 522.68 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jul 22 1994 17:20 | 26 |
| > Nance, the flip side to your 'weak God' reasoning is the
> reasoning implied by a God who fastens condemnation for some
> and salvation for others. And that flip side imho, is an
> evil God. God did not come to condemn the world. Period.
> The condemnation is inherent to sin.
Your flip side doesn't exist. You are implying that what I have
written takes choice away. It does not. Choice is till very much
apart of our lives after salvation. We can choose to reject Christ
after we have accepted him.
Security in Christ is not lack of choice. Security is believing that
once we receive Christ as Savior, our sin cannot separate us from God.
Our choice to reject him can. If in fact what you state is true, then
throw out Galatians 6. Be not deceived God is not mocked for
whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.
In fact throw out the Bible completely and just declare that we're all
going to heaven or we're all going to hell. Why? Because man will sin
even after salvation.
That means every Christian who sins is going to hell. What if I get on
a bus as a Christian and if it was possible, I pretend to drop 50 cents
into the bucket, but in reality I drop in two game tokens. I need to
get home and I was unwise in my budgeting. Then the bus was hit by
train and I die. Where will I go?
|
| 522.69 | Don't Think We Disagree | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jul 22 1994 18:09 | 10 |
| Hi Nance,
I thought you were advocating predestination. I do not
believe that we flipflop like a hot potatoe between sin
(be lost) and obedience (be saved). If I understand what
you are saying, we are in close to complete agreement.
I intend what I said to apply to predestination and osas.
Tony
|
| 522.70 | Are you just slipping on the road, or have you turned away? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jul 22 1994 18:09 | 7 |
| re .68
Depends on whether you were repentent about what you did, or whether you
did it with the attitude -- hah! God, I don't give a damn about your
bleeping commandments, I can get away with stealing anytime I want!
/john
|
| 522.71 | A parable | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Fri Jul 22 1994 18:41 | 10 |
|
Here's a parable :
A man dies and he goes to be with the Lord.
Several years later his daughter also dies and when she comes before the
Lord He says to her father, Your daughter was saved but later on in life
she comitted adultery and never repented of it "Throw her into the Lake
of Fire". Her father says "I can't" Why not asks the Lord. I love her too
much says the father. OK says the Lord, I love her more than you, so I'll
do it.
|
| 522.72 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:18 | 23 |
| .71 Hank
> A man dies and he goes to be with the Lord.
> Several years later his daughter also dies and when she comes before the
> Lord He says to her father, Your daughter was saved but later on in life
> she comitted adultery and never repented of it "Throw her into the Lake
> of Fire". Her father says "I can't" Why not asks the Lord. I love her too
> much says the father. OK says the Lord, I love her more than you, so I'll
> do it.
Again, this misrepresents justice and love. Jesus typifies what is love
and rejection when he weeps over Jerusalem saying how often he wanted to
gather them to him *but they would not*. And Jesus also says of those
towns which rejected the gospel that it will be worse for them in judgment
that for Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, we don't like to see how this reconciles
with L O V E. Love is in the offer and that offer is conditioned on faith
and belief. If faith and belief are rejected, what recourse is there?
Jesus will say, "depart from me I never knew you." By this shall we say
that God had not loved these people? No! But He will separate the sheep
from the goats; and the sheep are those who know is voice and heed his
commandments.
Mark
|
| 522.73 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:28 | 33 |
| .64 Bing
I agree with what you say. I do want to comment on this:
> If you believe we can lose our salvation, then it
> seems to me that its some manner of God's grace plus some portion of our
> works by which we're saved.
The nature of a relationship requires two persons doesn't it?
An offer must be accepted in order to complete a transaction.
God's grace is offered. It is God's grace ONLY that does the
work of salvation. But I am given the power to accept it or
reject it. Again, God's grace alone effects the salvation, but
">whosoever believeth on Him< should not perish but have everlasting
life."
I think the error in thought is in thinking that belief (acceptance of
the gift) is *added* to grace to effect salvation. Instead, it is part
of the singular transaction.
Scratch your nose. Go on. Now, how many acts did you perform? One
or hundreds? If you break it down to thinking, contracting muscles,
coordinating movement, etc. it is no longer one thing. God's grace
is quickened by our acceptance of His unconditional love; love that is
not conditioned on who we are, what we've done, or what we can do, but
love that MUST be accepted or we cannot partake in it! To receive
a gift, you must accept it.
So it is not "plus some portion" as I see it, Bing. Rather, the relationship
between Father and [adopted] son requires a covenant between us, and that
covenant can be broken on my end because I can walk away from it at any time.
Mark
|
| 522.74 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:33 | 17 |
| .65 Nancy
> I can honestly say that I was convicted about my sin... even though in
> rebellion. The conviction would come and that feeling in the knot of
> my stomach would clamp down.
I see no difference between being convicted of sin after having once
been saved and being convicted of sin having never been saved. In both
cases, the Holy Spirit convinces (sic) people of sin. I also see no
difference between a person who was once saved but in rebellious sin
and a person who was never saved and won't come to God. Actually I do.
There is Scripture where Jesus asks, "Which is the better son? The
one who says 'I won't do what you say' but repents and does, or the
one who says, 'I'll do what you say' but doesn't.'" Further, a person
who was once saved should know better than one who has never been saved.
Mark
|
| 522.75 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:40 | 18 |
| > Once you are His, you are His. And as long as you don't renounce him
> as your Savior, choose to reject that which you have chosen, then the
> sin in your life does not separate you from God.
I have to comment on this, Nancy, too.
When we hammered this out a long time ago, I came to the surprising conclusion
that OSASers and FFGers define "sin" a bit differently. And perhaps this is
very important and germaine to the discussion.
I am as deeply convinced as you that a person once saved but in a state of
continuing willful sin is NOT saved and WILL go to hell if they died in that
state.
Also, you say you can't be plucked out, but then say "as long as..."
Isn't that what we're talking about?
Mark
|
| 522.76 | a little more clarity | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:45 | 17 |
|
Re .72 Mark
You missed part of the point Mark (my fault)
If her earthly father was still her earthly father
then so was her Heavenly Father, or perhaps earthly fatherhood is more
powerful and binding than the Heavenly.
Also, take care Mark (and others), I have suffered from not paying close
attention to the following verse :
For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy.
Mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:13 NKJV.
Hank (see you all next Tues)
|
| 522.77 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:46 | 19 |
| > That means every Christian who sins is going to hell. What if I get on
> a bus as a Christian and if it was possible, I pretend to drop 50 cents
> into the bucket, but in reality I drop in two game tokens. I need to
> get home and I was unwise in my budgeting. Then the bus was hit by
> train and I die. Where will I go?
There you go looking for that line over which you cross into damnation.
God sees the heart; God knows the circumstance; God knows whether you'll
die in that bus. What if, what if, what if. OSAS need only make sure
of their election. FFGers don't worry about light-bulb salvation (on and
off) all the time. Sin is deliberate. Let me ask that if you you didn't
die in the bus, would you seek to make the fare right if the Holy Spirit
prompted you? Would you also seek to become wise in your budgeting.
Would you simply dismiss the game token incident if you KNEW it to
grieve the Holy Spirit?
Instead of splitting hairs, let's consider that each of us will find out
whether our sin will keep us from fellowship with the Father.
|
| 522.78 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:51 | 15 |
| > Also, take care Mark (and others), I have suffered from not paying close
> attention to the following verse :
>
> For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy.
> Mercy triumphs over judgment. James 2:13 NKJV.
I pass no judgment on anyone. God will judge and be just about it.
Only He knows the heart. Take care, Hank, that you do not lead someone
into thinking that God winks at sin because He is "loving."
It is NOT okay to sin and think that God will still accept you as
a child if you remain unrepentant! Repentance must occur for grace
to take effect. Repentence is an ACT of faith. We are saved by faith
alone (tying this all back to the beginning).
Mark
|
| 522.79 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:53 | 1 |
| Before I comment, what is an FFGer?
|
| 522.80 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 19:58 | 7 |
| FFG (not really an acronym I relish) means "fallen from grace".
Probably it should be more acurately termed, "having the ability to fall
from grace" (htatffg) or "having the free will to reject God after having
first accepted him." (htfwtrgahfah)
Ok, choose your acronym.
|
| 522.81 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jul 22 1994 20:27 | 1 |
| I prefer YCLI [you can lose it] :-)
|
| 522.82 | JbF | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Jul 22 1994 20:39 | 5 |
| iptajbf
I prefer talking about justification by faith!
Tony
|
| 522.83 | predestination vs. free will: not either/or but both | NACAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Fri Jul 22 1994 21:14 | 41 |
| In considering the issue of faith vs. works, I said that we are justified
before God 100% by faith, and justified before all creation 100% by works, with
no contradiction or compromise between the two. When you finally understand
that, things become quite simple and logical.
Predestination vs. free will works along the same lines. From the perspective
of God's eternal realm, we are 100% predestined, foreordained, chosen from
before the foundation of the world, according to God's plan, which by His
omniscience and omnipotence is not ever foiled, to be either his objects of
mercy or his objects of wrath.
From the perspective of the realm of all creation and time, we have 100% free
will, being able to choose to believe or not believe, do good or evil of our
own accord, heed or ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit, remain steadfast
in the faith or fall away to eternal destruction.
This is a case where you simply have to take God at his word, since it is
impossible for our finite minds to fully comprehend the eternal realm of
God, as we likewise do regarding the nature of God (e.g. how the One God
can be revealed in three persons).
And this is a case where we must not confuse these two realms, as if we must
compromise one at the expense of the other, or suppose that there is some
contradiction if we uphold the truths concerning both.
And again, this principle that I submit to you resolves some complex
theological debates into elegant simplicity, reducing them into so much
wasted energy. Debates such as "once-saved-always-saved vs. falling away"
are immediately resolved, for from the perspective of God's eternal realm,
one whom God has saved cannot become unsaved, yet from the perspective of
the realm of creation and time, there are people who certainly do in fact
believe for a little while, partaking of the Spirit of God, then fall away
from the faith, to the point of no return, to be considered enemies of God
at the Judgment.
It is the realm of creation that we must live and act in, yet we also have
faith in the realm of the eternal God and the things of eternity. The
scriptures are wisely written so that we may know to have faith in an eternal
God who has everything under control and his unchanging promises, yet also so
that we may know what is expected of us and how to conduct ourselves in this
world.
|
| 522.84 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Jul 22 1994 22:09 | 4 |
| .83 Garth
Yep. Both.
Paradox.
|
| 522.85 | | NACAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Jul 25 1994 12:04 | 25 |
| Or, consider how a believer can both die and await the resurrection, yet
go to be with the Lord immediately upon his death. Certainly, God's word
attests to both.
It is in the temporal realm that we die and are buried, and await the
Lord's return. It is in the eternal realm that we are with the Lord, through
faith.
A paradox. But wisdom is greater than knowledge, and one who is wise
will take God at his word, even if he lacks the mental capacity to fathom it.
There is no reason to conjure up various kinds of "holding areas", to put
people after they die.
Or, consider how we can be the righteousness of God, and sinners at the
same time. Certainly, any pagan will look at your sins, and tell you that
you are not righteous. And you are fooling yourself if you believe
otherwise, in this realm of existence. Yet we know and believe that Jesus
died to pay the penalty for our sins, an eternal price to pay, not just
for the sins that we did commit, but the ones we will commit. We have
faith that this completed work makes us righteous in the eternal realm.
But now you see why there is no reason for boasting in the temporal realm.
And again, getting back to the subject, you see that works cannot ever
play a part in justifying us before God, for there is no reversing the
sins that we have committed, and God is not satisfied with penance.
|
| 522.86 | | CSOA1::LEECH | I understand the black flame. | Mon Jul 25 1994 14:40 | 11 |
| It's only a paradox because of the way we look at time. God is not
limited to our linear existence.
We are only predestined in God's view because He *knows* how things are
going to turn out. He is in the past, present and future. The fact
is, we DO have free will and are not predestined to one place or the
other outside our own choices to put us there. It is beside the fact
that God already knows what all our choices will be.
-steve
|
| 522.87 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Mon Jul 25 1994 14:49 | 4 |
| For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and
blameless in His sight....
Andrew
|
| 522.88 | Both | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Jul 25 1994 15:08 | 13 |
| >For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and
>blameless in His sight....
Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this
day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were
on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye
dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20a I call heaven and earth to record this day against you,
that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
choose life that both thou and thy seed may live: that thou mayest love the
Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest
cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days...
|
| 522.89 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Mon Jul 25 1994 15:15 | 4 |
| Agreed, Mark; I was just making the point that it goes deeper than
prescience, without violating our free will.
Andrew
|
| 522.90 | knowledgable spectator | NACAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Jul 25 1994 16:26 | 9 |
| Re: .86 (Steve Leech)
> We are only predestined in God's view because He *knows* how things are
> going to turn out. He is in the past, present and future. The fact
> is, we DO have free will and are not predestined to one place or the
> other outside our own choices to put us there. It is beside the fact
> that God already knows what all our choices will be.
You make God out to be but a knowledgable spectator, then.
|
| 522.91 | | CSOA1::LEECH | I understand the black flame. | Mon Jul 25 1994 16:54 | 8 |
| Not at all.
Knowing our choices does not mean that He doesn't send help our way
when we pray for it (or when someone else prays for it).
This can be a most confusing subject.
-steve
|
| 522.92 | predestined | NACAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Mon Jul 25 1994 21:24 | 20 |
| Re: .86, .91 (Steve Leech)
> We are only predestined in God's view because He *knows* how things are
> going to turn out. He is in the past, present and future. The fact
> is, we DO have free will and are not predestined to one place or the
> other outside our own choices to put us there. It is beside the fact
> that God already knows what all our choices will be.
"predestine (v.) To decide or decree in advance; foreordain."
(American Heritage Dictionary)
"He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless
in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through
Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will..." (Eph 1:4-5)
"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan
of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..."
(Eph 1:11)
Bible is right. You are wrong.
|
| 522.93 | A Little On Election/Seeking Wisdom | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Jul 26 1994 13:01 | 44 |
| 1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...
(I believe election is according to God's foreknowledge.)
"Many are called [all humanity] but few are chosen [elected
according to God's foreknowledge]."
************************************************************
Jesus calls us to love our enemies and ends His sermon on the
Mount with the statement "Be perfect even as your Father in
heaven is perfect."
In another place, it is said that God hates all workers of
iniquity.
Lets see...He loves His enemies, He hates workers of iniquity.
Hmmmmm.
My understanding is that opening up the dictionary isn't always
going to suffice.
What will suffice is a line upon line, precept upon precept, here
a little, there a little study of the scriptures. Crying out for
wisdom and seeking her as for silver.
And realizing that what the word might appear to say on the surface,
is not always what it means...
Proverbs 1:5,6
A wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man of under-
standing will attain wise counsel,
To understand a proverb and an enigma, the words of the wise and
their riddles.
I honestly don't believe that to seek wisdom as THE BIBLE calls us
to seek it (line upon line, understanding proverbs, enigmas, riddles)
does not exactly square with quoting a text and opening up Webster.
Its just not gonna do. We need to seek wisdom in the way the Lord
calls us to seek her.
Tony
|
| 522.94 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jul 26 1994 13:36 | 100 |
| Here's the last little bit of a Peter Kreeft article in the latest "New
Oxford Review" -- a simulated discussion between C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther,
and Thomas Aquinas:
Lewis: Gentlemen, I am impressed by both your arguments, but I have heard
most of them before, and I am no closer to certainty now. I did not
mention any of these arguments in my books because I did not want to
set Scripture against Church, or Protestant against Catholic, for I
have a high view of all four.
Aquinas: A high view of both Scripture and Church sounds more Catholic
than Protestant.
Luther: But Brother Jack includes only Protestant -- that is, scriptural
-- teachings in his book "Mere Christianity". So "mere Christianity"
is just another name for Protestant Christianity.
Lewis: I do not agree with either of you there. "Mere Christianity" is
not more Catholic than Protestant, nor is it more Protestant than
Catholic. It is the common core.
Luther: The common core of Christianity?
Lewis: Yes.
Luther: And Christianity tells us essentially about our sin and Christ's
salvation, does it not?
Lewis: Yes.
Luther: Then "mere Christianity" tells us what we must do to be saved?
Lewis: Yes.
Luther: So if Protestants and Catholics disagree on how to be saved, there
is no common core, no common "mere Christianity."
Lewis: That seems to follow.
Aquinas: It seems we now come to the heart of our question about "mere
Christianity."
Luther: Indeed we have, and the question before us is only the single most
momentous question a man can ask in this world: "What must I do to be
saved?" And the clear and simple answer of Scripture is: "Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."
Aquinas: And I accept that. Do you also accept that good works are a
necessary fruit of faith?
Luther: I do.
Aquinas: Then we agree on two essential points.
Luther: But I do not agree that these good works contribute one iota to
our salvation. It is faith _alone_ that saves us.
Aquinas: But you admit that the good works are at least an index of faith,
like a grade in a course, do you not?
Luther: But the grade is not the _cause_ of passing the course. It is only
the effect.
Aquinas: That is so. But it _is_ a part of the whole process of education.
The fruit is part of the whole process of a plant's growth, and so good
works are part of the whole process of salvation.
Luther: Not salvation. Not justification. Only sanctification.
Aquinas: You admit, then, at least, that though a man can be justified by
faith alone, he is not sanctified by faith alone, but by works as well?
Luther: He is sanctified by his faith, too.
Aquinas: Is this a faith that works? Does not this faith lead to good works
as surely as the seed leads to the flower, if it is truly alive?
Luther: That is true.
Aquinas: So faith _works_. We both agree about that. I think we disagree
about _how_ it works. But that is theology. _That_ it works is religion.
We have the same religion, even if different theologies.
Luther: I am not sure I accept your anlysis of our differences. Let me try
to understand. How do you see our deepest differences in theology?
Aquinas: In two places. First, the link between faith and salvation. Second,
the link between faith and works. You taught a "federal theology": that
the link between faith and salvation was God's legal decree. I taught
that there is an ontological link, that faith and baptism actually let
God's very life into our souls, as turning on a faucet lets water flow.
Luther: That is correct. I was a Nominalist, and suspicious of such
metaphysics.
Aquinas: And the second link, between faith and good works, was for you our
gratitude for being saved. But for me it is ontological again: The same
supernatural life we let in by faith, we let out by good works.
Luther: Metaphysics again!
Aquinas: But surely the objective reality of the life and grace of God is a
surer basis for a connection than the subjective feeling and response
of man? _That_ sounds more like humanism than Christianity!
Luther: That is no more humanistic than your belief that our faith causes
Christ's life to enter us. I say it is rather the reverse: the object
of our faith, Christ, is the cause of our act of faith.
Aquinas: I affirm that, too. That is why I agree with your "sola gratia."
Our very free will and its choice to accept God's grace is itself grace:
both created by grace and healed and inspired by grace. One of the
Church's greatest saints said with her dying breath: "Everything is
grace." It is God's grace that gives us Christ. It is Christ who
gives us the Spirit. It is the Spirit who gives us supernatural life
in our souls. It is this life that produces our faith. Finally, this
faith creates its own good works as a good tree bears good fruit. It
is all one divine chain, with six golden links, laden end to end with
love. Love begins it, as the motive for grace. And the works of love
end it. When we do the works of love, that is God doing them in us
through this golden chain. "God is love, and he who lives in love,
lives in God and God in him" -- _that_ concrete reality is "mere
Christianity." But...
At this point the conversation was suddenly interrupted. All three men were
beginning to smile when two things happened simultaneously. First, a radio
announced an apocalyptic event from America: The Boston Red Sox had won the
World Series. Second, at this announcement the sky rolled apart like a
scroll and all three men were raptured to Heaven. As they ascended, they
heard a Charlton Heston-like voice muttering something about "the clearest
apocalyptic sign I ever gave them."
Perhaps we should get on with our work and complete the discussion they began,
before it's too late.
|
| 522.95 | | NACAD::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Tue Jul 26 1994 16:44 | 3 |
| Re: .94 (John Covert)
I enjoyed reading that. I have always had a high regard for Peter Kreeft.
|
| 522.96 | | KALI::WIEBE | Garth Wiebe | Wed Jul 27 1994 16:13 | 6 |
| Re: .95 (me)
>I enjoyed reading that. I have always had a high regard for Peter Kreeft.
Actually, I should correct myself to say that I have had a high regard for
Peter Kreeft's writings. I don't actually know him beyond that.
|