Christian Denomination that believes/teaches faith AND works

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheSeeker2014
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
Im willing to bet that those organizations are larger than St Vincent de Paul Society. And I know that many Catholics contribute to those organizations like Salvation Army.

I agree that its deceptive to imply that St Vincent is less than Christian. But none of this really has much to do with the doctrines. I agree that its not about trying to show that Non Catholic Christians do good works. They do! And that shows that God is working through them. I am willing to bet that there are many athiests and non Christian people who contribute to the Salvation Army as well!
Click to expand...
I love my St. Vincent store…not only for the cool stuff I get but for the fact that it actually turns my money around and uses it in such a way that people in my neighborhood are fed, clothed and receive training and work. This is a valuable CHRISTIAN resource in my area! Thank God for those who are willing to do this!

Blessings!

Rita
 
Per_Crucem said:
Understood. However, the New Testament understanding of works and how they relate to salvation are far, far deeper than mere human morality. Christianity is not a system of morals or ethics. It is fundamentally about eschatological transformation. This is why works are part of salvation/justification.
Click to expand...
Hi PC

Agree and think our evangelical poster would also, that of course it is deeper than “morality” in that we are a new creation, a “transformation” now , being born again, the laws written in our hearts and minds.unto good works

I liken it to a baby being born. Can the baby claim any “work” in the matter, and in the end,is it not all a gift, lest any baby boasting, as in , “hey, I had to breathe, even cry out my first utterance (of praise)”. I think part of the problem is when we institutionalize the birth, the first utterance, the breathing, and eventual walking etc… Do we not all say it must happen this way , in this church this way and another that way and be sustained by religious rites and sacraments,in this church or that church. Not sure if all such institutional "works’’ are the works that scripture says we were ordained to do since before the foundation of the earth.
The Pharisees were not criticized by Christ for teaching that works affect our relationship with God.
Click to expand...
And yet we must ask is there anything you can do to make Him love you more, or less ? Then is His love for His children “conditional” or not (not withstanding appropriate rewards)?
They were criticized by Christ for teaching false, dead works, based on human tradition; and later, by the apostles (vis a vie the Judaizers) for teaching that Gentiles must abide by the Mosaic Law, which was ended by the blood of the cross.
Click to expand...
I think they were criticized in part for having a salvation by works, even in circumcision, and Godly rites. Yes, you can have works that are man made and therefore dead, but you can also doing “God” works, works of righteousness, and still be “dead”. Nicodemus is a prime example. He did all the righteous works God instituted, was even a teacher of those Judaic requirements, and "trusted " in these righteous works wrongly, for he did not have that transformation, was not born of the spirit and thus blind, spiritually dead in his trespasses and sins. Paul also speaks of his Judaic pre-transformation “righteousness” in the one, true religion that God had instituted and called it “dung”. The problem was not with Holy Judaism (Christianity) but with our "misunderstanding’’ of it’s effectualness, even presuming it upon ourselves because we have done Jewish or Christian rites.
 
SteveVH said:
Discovering truth and conforming your life to that truth even when it is difficult is “seeing thru a glass darkly”? No, that takes courage and integrity.
Click to expand...
Hi Steve. Totally agreed. Just bummed that he may have gave in and lost that which he had from the beginning. We both know that can happen also, both to right and wrong teaching. Actually not sure what he believed beforehand. Thought Luther balanced faith and works ok , that he did not deny works after transformation.

Blessings
 
benhur said:
Hi Steve. Totally agreed. Just bummed that he may have gave in and lost that which he had from the beginning. We both know that can happen also, both to right and wrong teaching. Actually not sure what he believed beforehand. Thought Luther balanced faith and works ok , that he did not deny works after transformation.

Blessings
Click to expand...
So you’re basically bummed that he realized the Catholic position was better than the position he previously held? He didn’t “give in” to anything except the truth, even when it went against what he preferred to believe. We all need to “give in” to the truth.
 
I’ve always seen faith and works as working together and not being exclusive. It seems pretty clear to me that the bible teaches that one doesn’t have true faith if there isn’t any works as an outpouring of that faith. I really don’t think that the traditional Lutheran and Catholic positions are that far from each other.

As far as denominations go, I can only really speak for the Episcopal Church. What teachings you will find in the Episcopal Church can greatly vary from parish to parish, diocese to diocese. That said, TEC absolutely encourages being active, involved, and doing good works. Whether one always agrees with the works being done may be another matter, however, one can’t really accuse TEC of doing nothing. I would even go as far to say that in some places works are emphasized more than faith or anything else.
 
The way it was explained to me in RCIA was that our faith and our works in themselves have no saving power. It is ultimately the grace of God alone that saves us. Our faith and our works, together, are our responses to that grace, and these two are inseperable. Our faith and works, when united with the passion of Christ, have saving power, not only for us but for the human race. We unite our good works with the passion of Christ through prayer and especially through partaking in the Eucharist, where we offer our lives and our sufferings to the Lord. Without the passion of Christ our works and our sufferings mean nothing.
 
CompSciGuy said:
The way it was explained to me in RCIA was that our faith and our works in themselves have no saving power. It is ultimately the grace of God alone that saves us. Our faith and our works, together, are our responses to that grace, and these two are inseperable.
Click to expand...
This is a good way to Teach 👍
Our faith and works, when united with the passion of Christ, have saving power, not only for us but for the human race.
Click to expand...
Not to be oppositional, or imply you meant otherwise, but I would think Our “Faith and Works” flow from the passion of Christ. If our works are not from the will of the Father and Son, then our faith is not in Them either.
We unite our good works with the passion of Christ through prayer and especially through partaking in the Eucharist, where we offer our lives and our sufferings to the Lord. Without the passion of Christ our works and our sufferings mean nothing.
Click to expand...
This is also accurate, in my opinion, just such depth in understanding, right? The will of God calls us to receive the gospel of Christ and be converted in order to receive the Spirit of His Son so that we can do the will of God. This is thanksgiving, and glory offered to God through a living and working faith which are works pleasing to Him.
 
Koineman said:
The fact that we say God is one God but three persons.

Now I am aware of the way that we explain that: God is three persons in one essence, and that removes the alleged contradiction. Nevertheless, the whole concept cannot be understood completely using human reasoning, so we have to accept what God has revealed.

If perfect understanding were a prerequisite to having faith, we’d be in trouble.
Click to expand...
So then there IS no logical problem with the Trinity.
 
KjetilK said:
So then there IS no logical problem with the Trinity.
Click to expand...
I’d say that it transcends our ability to understand perfectly. The explanation I gave (three persons in one essence) helps to resolve some of the difficulty, but in the end you are still left with the idea of one God but three persons, which IS quite difficult to grasp, in that “one God” implies one person, but “three persons” is, of course, more than one.

I don’t reject the doctrine of the Trinity. I just accept that I cannot understand it completely.
 
Koineman said:
I’d say that it transcends our ability to understand perfectly. The explanation I gave (three persons in one essence) helps to resolve some of the difficulty, but in the end you are still left with the idea of one God but three persons, which IS quite difficult to grasp, in that “one God” implies one person, but “three persons” is, of course, more than one.

I don’t reject the doctrine of the Trinity. I just accept that I cannot understand it completely.
Click to expand...
But that is not what logical or illogical mean.
 
KjetilK said:
But that is not what logical or illogical mean.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. But I think it makes my earlier point still stand, which was simply this: If we expect perfect understanding before we believe something, it can be a problem.
 
Koineman said:
Yes, I know. But I think it makes my earlier point still stand, which was simply this: If we expect perfect understanding before we believe something, it can be a problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, but again: that doesn’t make it illogical. And that is a concern. Because ‘logical’ and ‘illogical’ have very specific meanings. If I was non-Christian and some apologist had met me, and said that the Trinity is illogical, I would reject the Trinity, and Christianity, since you cannot have one without the other. And I would be right to do so. Because if something is illogical, it is untrue.
 
KjetilK said:
Yes, but again: that doesn’t make it illogical. And that is a concern. Because ‘logical’ and ‘illogical’ have very specific meanings. If I was non-Christian and some apologist had met me, and said that the Trinity is illogical, I would reject the Trinity, and Christianity, since you cannot have one without the other. And I would be right to do so. Because if something is illogical, it is untrue.
Click to expand...
Or it’s only illogical according to our present understanding, which is limited.
 
JonNC said:
When one says works are “needed”, I think it depends on what is meant.
As a life long Lutheran, I have never been taught that works are not needed. What I have been taught is that works do not justify. We are justified by grace alone, though faith alone in Christ alone.
We are then freed to perform the good works He places before us to do. We are to love the Lord our God, AND our neighbors as ourselves.

I believe the [Epitome of the Formula of Concord ](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.)says the belief well:
Quote:
  1. That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree.
Click to expand...
In Romans, St. Paul isn’t talking about “good works” in general, but a particular KIND of “works”: Jewish ceremonial “works of the law” ergon nomos].
Click to expand...
 
FathersKnowBest said:
In Romans, St. Paul isn’t talking about “good works” in general, but a particular KIND of “works”: Jewish ceremonial “works of the law” ergon nomos].
Click to expand...
Where in Romans do you see Paul limiting works of law to “ceremonial” works?
 
Koineman said:
Where in Romans do you see Paul limiting works of law to “ceremonial” works?
Click to expand...
The context. Both interiorly and historically (the technical meaning of contemporaneous Jewish writings).

From THE WORKS OF THE LAW
Romans 3:20 is the first occurrence of the expression “works of the Torah” (Gk., ergon nomou) in Paul. This term is familiar in modern preaching as “works of the law,” however it would be more properly translated in context as “works of Torah,” since the law (nomos) Paul is everywhere speaking of in Romans and Galatians is the Mosaic Law (Torah; nomos being the common Septuagint translation of the Hebrew term “Torah”; see the parallel essay, “The Law in Paul” for further discussion).
The translation of ergon nomou as “works of Torah” is confirmed by archaeological-lexical evidence because it also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the first-century Qumran community in Israel. It appears in a famous document known as MMT, which served as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for the Qumran community. This document, whose name translates as “Some Pertinent Works of Torah,” is focused on certain disputed interpretations of specific Mosaic regulations, and it reveals an enormous preoccupation on the part of first century Jews with works of Torah. The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul (cf. the three articles in the Nov/Dec 1994 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review and R. Eisenman and M. Wises book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, chapter 6, Works Reckoned as Righteousness Legal Texts).
Click to expand...
The term “works of Torah” thus predates Paul and is a term he picked up from the Jewish vocabulary of his day (which is why he is having to dispute with people over it in Romans and Galatians, because they were already using the term). And as we said, its first occurrence in Paul is Romans 3:20. Before this point in Romans the term ergon (“work” or “deed”) and its cognates were only found in 2:6, 7, and 15. In none of these places does the term indicate what Paul here has in mind.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top