Confusion over faith vs. works

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silvertip
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Silvertip

Guest
There is an interesting discussion on “onlinebaptist.com” regarding faith versus works. Some members are trying to work through the inconsistent theology of the Baptist view of faith vs. works, and if you qualify as saved if you do no works.

Basically, someone is complaining that some “soulwinners” walk around asking people if they are saved and say the sinner’s prayer with them. Then the “soulwinner” walks away and never sees the new “believer” again. They are wondering if they are really saved if they never go to church and never practice their faith.

I find the Catholic view of the relationship between faith and works makes so much more sense. It is interesting seeing how these people try to muddle through the problem.

Of course, Catholics aren’t welcome to post there unless they are interested in converting to the Baptist faith. So I’m kind of lurking there.
 
How do I navigate to the discussion you’re talking about on the site?
 
Go to onlinebaptist.com

Click on “Forum”

Register

When you are registered, go to “Biblical Issues”

In that forum, go to “Faith without works is dead”

Also, check out the “Mourner’s benches” subject. Apparently there is some Baptist preachers with the new idea of putting kneelers in the churches and in the pews!
 
Here is my opinion about the faith & works discussion:

Faith without works is dead (James 2:17& 26)(paraphrased)

Works without faith are almost useless.

Therefore, the old addage is true, actions speak louder than words

If I stand in front of a huge crowd and proclaim to be a christian yet as I am leaving the podium I push, shove, kick, hit and physically abuse everyone between me and the door I am not showing myself to be what I have just proclaimed to be.

My opinion is that you have to have BOTH. Our actions reinforce what we say with our mouths. We were told to love our neighbor, not to just say I love you to our neighbor and nothing more.
 
I actually think that the issue can be seen, as follows:

For a sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fides Christian,
the emphasis is placed on the fact that Christ is our
justification, salvation and righteousness.

That nothing a man/woman can do will “effect” their
salvation: Christ has wrought our salvation.

And, when “faith” is spoken of, in these communities,
it connotes “lively faith” = obedience to Christ’s
commands.

The trickery part, is this:

Is baptism, then, seen as a “work.” Since Christ
commanded same, it’s something that we need
to “do.”

Yet, since it is something we “do” [work], does
this fact titrate “no works” theology?
Additionally difficult is the fact that, in practice,
not in theology] many RC’s act as if “works”
save…sacraments, fasting etc. This is not
what the Church teaches, but it is a mindset
not unknown in practice, I think.
I often think that the genuine difference lies in
emphasis. RC’s emphasize what needs to
be “done” to be saved “Work out your salvation…”]

Many non-Catholic Christian denominations emphasize
faith in Christ “I accept Jesus as my personal Savior.
He has done the work of my salvation. My obedience
to His commands is an expression of love and gratitude,
for this salvation…not “work” that “effects” my salvation.”]

To me, both groups are saying the same thing, with
different emphases…which has caused no end of
needless dispute, on at least the “faith/works” issue.

Just my thought,

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
I actually think that the issue can be seen, as follows:

For a sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fides Christian,
the emphasis is placed on the fact that Christ is our
justification, salvation and righteousness.

That nothing a man/woman can do will “effect” their
salvation: Christ has wrought our salvation.

And, when “faith” is spoken of, in these communities,
it connotes “lively faith” = obedience to Christ’s
commands.

The trickery part, is this:

Is baptism, then, seen as a “work.” Since Christ
commanded same, it’s something that we need
to “do.”

Yet, since it is something we “do” [work], does
this fact titurate “no works” theology?
Additionally difficult is the fact that, in practice,
not in theology] many RC’s act as if “works”
save…sacraments, fasting etc. This is not
what the Church teaches, but it is a mindset
not unknown in practice, I think.
I often think that the genuine difference lies in
emphasis. RC’s emphasize what needs to
be “done” to be saved “Work out your salvation…”]

Many non-Catholic Christian denominations emphasize
faith in Christ “I accept Jesus as my personal Savior.
He has done the work of my salvation. My obedience
to His commands is an expression of love and gratitude,
for this salvation…not “work” that “effects” my salvation.”]

To me, both groups are saying the same thing, with
different emphases…which has caused no end of
needless dispute, on at least the “faith/works” issue.

Just my thought,

reen12
Click to expand...
I like your line of thinking here. I hope you will allow a clarification from a very Catholic perspective.

I was taught and have long explained faith/works from a different perspective that made sense to my (former Evangelical) now Catholic, husband (granted not Baptist for this thread but a similar belief set.) In a nutshell:

Faith is the works of the Spirit, while works are the faith of the body." Clear as mud? Since we cannot separate, in life, our body from our spirit, the two must always be in union. Since we know good works don’t always naturally follow a declaration of faith, then we know that argument is empty. Since we also know that no matter how much a person can do the work, it will not earn heaven, so that argument is also useless.

We are saved by grace. Period. That we have bodies and spirits is why both works and faith are necessary. The argument many (Protestant) groups have is that they don’t understand the difference between ‘works of the law’ and ‘works of righteousness’. I have a few examples that have explained it well if anyone is interested. I call them the tassle and the speed limit.
 
40.png
Silvertip:
There is an interesting discussion on “onlinebaptist.com” regarding faith versus works. Some members are trying to work through the inconsistent theology of the Baptist view of faith vs. works, and if you qualify as saved if you do no works.

Basically, someone is complaining that some “soulwinners” walk around asking people if they are saved and say the sinner’s prayer with them. Then the “soulwinner” walks away and never sees the new “believer” again. They are wondering if they are really saved if they never go to church and never practice their faith.
Click to expand...
I am interested in what they ‘decide.’ After all, they have as much authority on the board as any other group in their religion. I don’t want to register to even lurk so if you could keep us updated on the outcome, I would be interested. I always wondered how they would explain away this problem. I would think it would just be, “Well he wasn’t really saved to begin with.”
 
Hi, LittleDeb,

thanks for a great reply!

quote: LittleDeb
We are saved by grace. Period. That we have bodies and spirits is why both works and faith are necessary.
Click to expand...
This is one of my favorite topics, and I post on it all the
time. It cheered me to see you say:
We are saved by grace. Period.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing. The word “necessary” is, I think,
understood differently by RC’s and non-RC Christians.
Because to some Christians, the word “necessary”
is redolent of “works”…ie. I can effect my own
salvation.

It then becomes:
obedience to Christ’s commands is a necessary
element of faith…not salvation.
So, “faith” saves, through grace.

quote:LittleDeb
The argument many (Protestant) groups have is that they don’t understand the difference between ‘works of the law’ and ‘works of righteousness’. I have a few examples that have explained it well if anyone is interested. I call them the tassle and the speed limit.
Click to expand...
Would be most interested to hear these examples!

Best,

reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
Here’s the thing. The word “necessary” is, I think,
understood differently by RC’s and non-RC Christians.
Because to some Christians, the word “necessary”
is redolent of “works”…ie. I can effect my own
salvation.

It then becomes:
obedience to Christ’s commands is a necessary
element of faith…not salvation.
So, “faith” saves, through grace.
Click to expand...
I can see what you are saying here. I guess my question is WHY they think that way? Isn’t “having faith” effecting their own salvation too, then? (I understand we are using effect in the definition of “creating or making,” not affect “as having an influence on,” correct?)

It still seems like they are in a circular argument if obedience to Christ’s commands is a necessary element of faith, then it would follow that it is a necessary element of salvation. Since faith is, under their own definition, necessary to salvation.
Would be most interested to hear these examples!

Best,

reen12
Click to expand...
I started to type out this long thing but it just sounds funny in writing. Usually when I talk about it, it is during a conversation. When I tried to type it that way, it sounded like some sort of one-sided conversation I was having with myself. So I will just give the examples and then clarify if it is not enough.

Example: The speed limit is an example of ‘works of the law.’ Voluntarily feeding the hungry is an example of ‘works of righteousness.’

When Paul was rebuking those who were doing works and expecting heaven he was rebuking works of the law. In the modern day version it is the person who says, “I believe in God and I live a good life so I should go to heaven.” Many people define ‘living a good life’ as paying their taxes and not breaking the speed limit and other such things. Nearly every time works are defined in scripture they are in the context to show whether they are ‘law’ or ‘righteousness.’ The argument of Protestant ‘no works’ does not take the differences into account. While obeying the speed limit is a good thing, it is not a work of righteousness and is therefore NOT part of salvation. On the other hand, feeding the hungry (voluntarily) is.

The other example is the tassle. Protestants harp a lot on the scene in Scripture where the woman touches the tassle on Jesus’ cloak and is healed. (too tired to look it up but I will get it later if needed.) Since he turns to her and says, “Your faith has saved you,” they tend to hold that faith without works is fine because she was saved by “faith alone.” What they fail to share with those they are evangelizing is the work she went through to touch his tassle. He doesn’t just turn to her out of the blue and say it. He says it only after scripture describes the effort she made and the action she took to touch him. If it was faith alone, then why did she have to touch Him?

Her work was a work of righteousness. Touching him was proving she believed who He was through action. She says, “If I can just touch his cloak I will be healed.” Now Protestants would argue that by that definition this would be a work that “followed” a declaration of faith. I am not against that argument. I am against their particular definition of what constitutes a “work.” By Catholic definition a “work” is any action that glorifies God.

A ‘work of the law’ just keeps us safe and out of trouble. A ‘work of righteousness’ glorifies God.

I hope that was sort of clear. It was harder to convey in writing than I thought it would be.
 
quote: LittleDeb
I can see what you are saying here. I guess my question is WHY they think that way? Isn’t “having faith” effecting their own salvation too, then? (I understand we are using effect in the definition of “creating or making,” not affect “as having an influence on,” correct?)
Click to expand...
Right. First definition: creating [as in: causing].

It took me forever, to come to an understanding of
the distinction between “faith” and “works”, in
the hearts of some nonRC-Christians. And I* think* I’ve
got it right:

“Faith saves” = in the sense of Christ saying:
“Do you believe I can do this for you?”
“Go thy way, thy faith has saved thee.” [healed thee]

I think it is thought that “works” are of no import,
in terms of salvation, after faith in Jesus is acknowledged…
that is, the act of saying: I accept Jesus as Lord and
Savior is not viewed as a “work”, because it
pre-dates [or is “co-temporaneous” with] “becoming”
a Christian, and therefore saved.

Now, this view makes perfect sense, to me,
however awkwardly I’ve stated same.

If you think of it, RC theology acknowledges that
salvation comes through Christ alone, and that
“works” don’t “save.”

To me, it’s a great difference in emphasis, not
belief.

Where the RCC truely differs from Evangelicalism,
for instance, is in the sacramental system…which
is viewed as a list of “works.”

A “you must do this”…to be saved.
That salvation has to be “applied,” which perplexes
the minds and hearts of some of those who hold to
“sola fides.”

The connection between the grace of the sacrament
and “sola gratia” is not accepted.

I’ll attempt to reply, to the rest of your post, later
today.

Many thanks for your thoughts, LittleDeb,

reen12
 
[contd.]

As I said, I’ll reply to the second part of your
post, later in the day.

But I did want to say, that I thought that what
you wrote was the soul of clarity.

The line of approach I’ll take, in further reply, is this:

Paul was a Pharisee. For him, the Law meant,
primarily, the Mosaic Law. cf. Letter to the Hebrews].

[The example of reaching out to touch the tassle is
perfect! ]

reen12
 
Hi, LittleDeb,

In the ensuing hours, I have had an exchange of

posts [numbers 42, 43, 44] on the following thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=82358

So much for my “understanding” ! 😦

I’m going to re-read the Letter to the Hebrews, before

trying to respond to the 2nd part of your post, which

is an excellent presentation, I think.

Best,

reen12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top