Faith and works - simple logic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuciaS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LuciaS

Guest
Hi! I need someone to validate, refute, or correct my logic.
For starters let me make one thing clear - I am a Catholic and believe that we must have faith AND works. But when explaining this to non-Catholics, in spite of James 2: 14-26 which CLEARLY states that we cannot be saved by faith alone, sometimes non-Catholics do not understand this because they like to point out other pieces of scripture that say if we have faith we are saved. They fail to realise that this does not mean that faith to the exclusion of works can save us.

So I have developed a little set of logic statements and I am by no means a logician so I need someone to tell me if it is correct. (keep in mind the logician’s if is not an “if and only if”) It is very simplified but…

If we have faith then we go to heaven.
If we do not have faith then we do not go to heaven.

If we sin we do not go to heaven. (Galatians 5: 19-21)
If we do not sin then we go to heaven.

We go to heaven therefore we had faith and we did good things.

Or, where f = faith, s = sin, h= heaven:

if f → h
if ~f → ~h

if s → ~h
if ~s → h

h therefore f ^ ~s.

I’m not sure if this is sound logic… please let me know if I can write it out a better way. Thanks!
 
That’s good and looks like precise logic to me. What you may find, however, is that those die-hards who just don’t accept works (with faith) as necessary may tell you that sin is simply lack of faith. Therefore, you may want to develop a logic statement defining sin that you can then link with the one you just stated.
 
If you want some non-religious perspective, here goes:
A god that would require faith as a prerequisite for the ultimate reward, is not a very good god. And a god that would require good works is not very much better. Especially if there is not only a lack of reward, but also punishment. By some Christian definitions of god, I could do a gazillion Mother Theresas of good works and still be punished in a lake of fire if I don’t believe the god exists. If hell and heaven exist, I hope that a lack of faith and a lack of BAD works would be sufficient to enter the latter.
 
LuciaS said:
Hi! I need someone to validate, refute, or correct my logic.
For starters let me make one thing clear - I am a Catholic and believe that we must have faith AND works. But when explaining this to non-Catholics, in spite of James 2: 14-26 which CLEARLY states that we cannot be saved by faith alone, sometimes non-Catholics do not understand this because they like to point out other pieces of scripture that say if we have faith we are saved. They fail to realise that this does not mean that faith to the exclusion of works can save us.

So I have developed a little set of logic statements and I am by no means a logician so I need someone to tell me if it is correct. (keep in mind the logician’s if is not an “if and only if”) It is very simplified but…

If we have faith then we go to heaven.
If we do not have faith then we do not go to heaven.

If we sin we do not go to heaven. (Galatians 5: 19-21)
If we do not sin then we go to heaven.

We go to heaven therefore we had faith and we did good things.

Or, where f = faith, s = sin, h= heaven:

if f → h
if ~f → ~h

if s → ~h
if ~s → h

h therefore f ^ ~s.

I’m not sure if this is sound logic… please let me know if I can write it out a better way. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I remember this in math 👍 But It’s not really logical because that goes something like this. If we A then we B. If we B then we C. Therefore if we A then we C. lol

Well, I do not really agree with your idea though (I am a protestant so big surprise). My thing is if you are mass murder and repent on your death bed (and basically don’t have any good works under your belt), then you still got a shot at Heaven, right? I mean, that’s what they call that death-bed confession.

If Hittler repented at the last moments of his life, even though we don’t like the thought of him in Heaven, would he have been denied it?

Those instances don’t have works involved - to the contrary they have things done by people who knew better but still did it knowingly.

That’s what God’s forgiveness is for. Nothing we can ever do can make us saved, except accepting Christ’s forgiveness.

That’s not to say though that you can do whatever the heck you want knowing you can just repent at the last second. Maybe you will die in a second and not get that chance. That’s why Christians generally like to do the “right thing” anyway. If you happen not to, you can still be forgiven without works.
 
LuciaS said:
I’m not sure if this is sound logic… please let me know if I can write it out a better way. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Your logic is valid, but probably not sound from a Protestant point of view, since many Protestants would deny your third and fourth premises by saying that our faith in Christ allows God to forgive our sins and that those who regularly commit the sins listed in Gal 5 didn’t have “saving” or “living” faith.

In some sense, all Christians already believe works are “necessary,” in the following sense:
  1. We are saved only if we have “saving faith.” In other words, if we’re saved, then we must have saving faith.
  2. If someone has saving faith, then he will do works of love and charity.
  3. Jim does not do works of love and charity.
  4. By 2, 3, and modus tollens, Jim does not have saving faith.
  5. By 1, 4, and modus tollens, Jim is not saved.
The real question, to my mind, is whether our status before God changes because of our works or our works are merely a necessary consequence of our already-changed status. Both Catholic and Protestant theologies place at least some importance on works – in the former, because not doing good works is sinful and separates you from God; in the latter, because failure to do good works is evidence that you don’t have the sort of faith that gains salvation.
 
that1dude said:
If you want some non-religious perspective, here goes:
A god that would require faith as a prerequisite for the ultimate reward, is not a very good god. And a god that would require good works is not very much better. Especially if there is not only a lack of reward, but also punishment. By some Christian definitions of god, I could do a gazillion Mother Theresas of good works and still be punished in a lake of fire if I don’t believe the god exists. If hell and heaven exist, I hope that a lack of faith and a lack of BAD works would be sufficient to enter the latter.
Click to expand...
Why?

Why would a God who requires faith and/or works or both in order to receive eternal reward not be good?

Also, what is ‘goodness’? I only ask because you seem to feel that there is some sort of quality, which you have called “good”, and I wonder how you define this?

Also, if there is a standard of ‘goodness’, which you seem to think there is, your line of questioning would also suggest that this ‘goodness’ is worthy of some sort of reward. The reason I bring this up is because your statement, “non-religious”, leads me to believe that you are an atheist, because a non-Christian could still be religious, and if you are an atheist, by what reason do you reckon that this ‘goodness’ is or is not worthy of reward by which you make a value judgment on the goodness or lack thereof of God?
 
bogeydogg said:
Why?

Why would a God who requires faith and/or works or both in order to receive eternal reward not be good?

Also, what is ‘goodness’? I only ask because you seem to feel that there is some sort of quality, which you have called “good”, and I wonder how you define this?

Also, if there is a standard of ‘goodness’, which you seem to think there is, your line of questioning would also suggest that this ‘goodness’ is worthy of some sort of reward. The reason I bring this up is because your statement, “non-religious”, leads me to believe that you are an atheist, because a non-Christian could still be religious, and if you are an atheist, by what reason do you reckon that this ‘goodness’ is or is not worthy of reward by which you make a value judgment on the goodness or lack thereof of God?
Click to expand...
Can we agree that there is such a thing as “good”? You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. A good entity does not punish other entities who have not harmed anyone, regardless of their beliefs or knowledge.
 
Of course I agree that there is something called ‘good’. What I want to know is how you define it.
 
bogeydogg said:
Of course I agree that there is something called ‘good’. What I want to know is how you define it.
Click to expand...
Fun question.
good: not harming the innocent unduly.
advancing pleasure with acceptable side effects agreed upon by rational actors (holy ****! I just made that up)

easier to define “bad”: harming the innocent.

I’m sorry. am drunk. feel made good points. want come back to this.

Please define “good” for me. Then I proceed within you framework.
 
that1dude said:
Fun question.
good: not harming the innocent unduly.
advancing pleasure with acceptable side effects agreed upon by rational actors (holy ****! I just made that up)

easier to define “bad”: harming the innocent.

I’m sorry. am drunk. feel made good points. want come back to this.

Please define “good” for me. Then I proceed within you framework.
Click to expand...
So then is it OK to harm the innocent just so long as it is not unduly?

Also, as far as advancing pleasure with acceptable side effects, I can tell you as a recovering addict that I can easily advance my own pleasure with acceptable side effects but that neither makes my behavior good or wise.
 
bogeydogg said:
So then is it OK to harm the innocent just so long as it is not unduly?

Also, as far as advancing pleasure with acceptable side effects, I can tell you as a recovering addict that I can easily advance my own pleasure with acceptable side effects but that neither makes my behavior good or wise.
Click to expand...
It is OK to harm the innocent. I can imagine extreme circumstances. if 100 percent sure that one innocents death equals one billion innocents saved.

I said acceptable side effects “agreed upon by rational actors”. Do not gloss over this distinction. My definition described good as being acceptable by all parties involved in the action.

I ask you for the second time: Please define “good”.
 
The reason I am pushing you on this is that in your initial post to this thread you said, “A god that would require faith as a prerequisite for the ultimate reward, is not a very good god. And a god that would require good works is not very much better.”

You used this as a means to criticize God, or at the very least what you think is the Orthodox understanding of Him. BTW, I said orthodox because this is a Catholic thread and as such I don’t feel it’s necessary to chase every single rabbit trail of every protestant and pseudo-christian org. out there so that is the framework in which I choose to converse. You may think this an unfair restriction but you said name a framework and I did.

The problem with your statement is that your words carry some inherent meta-physical connotations and I want to be sure that I understand you before proceeding.

For example, when you say “good works” in reference to an eternal reward or lack of eternal reward, your language would indicate a sort of presupposed meaning of the word “good” in reference to what is acceptable to achieve or miss said eternal reward. My question is, what do you mean by this word “good” which you seem to feel, based on your language, is deserving of some merit and I ask you to define it so that I can know what is and is not worthy in your eyes so that I can understand where you think human behavior meets said standard and God falls deficient?

In other words, I want to know what your standard is so that I have some idea where goodness falls and badness falls on the scale so that we may proceed. I am of course assuming that you do not wish to use my terms for these words because I am after all a theist and as such my ideas, which based on the idea that you are in fact an atheist, would be unacceptable to you from the get go.

I am genuinely curious to hear, as it were, your response. I will check here later today and see what you have to say.

Thank you.
 
bogeydogg said:
So then is it OK to harm the innocent just so long as it is not unduly?

Also, as far as advancing pleasure with acceptable side effects, I can tell you as a recovering addict that I can easily advance my own pleasure with acceptable side effects but that neither makes my behavior good or wise.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you are addicted to a substance and “advance your own pleasure with acceptable side effects” then your actions are good. That is, if the “acceptable side effects” are not “bad”. Take drug that is fun at night, and only side effect is sleepiness.
 
What if every ACTION that I do could be called “good Christian action” and yet I am utterly convinced there is no such thing as a god. Do I get into heaven? Realize that there is no ACTION one can do that is necessarily predicated on any certain belief.
 
Pinkyyy said:
I remember this in math 👍 But It’s not really logical because that goes something like this. If we A then we B. If we B then we C. Therefore if we A then we C. lol

Well, I do not really agree with your idea though (I am a protestant so big surprise). My thing is if you are mass murder and repent on your death bed (and basically don’t have any good works under your belt), then you still got a shot at Heaven, right? I mean, that’s what they call that death-bed confession.

If Hittler repented at the last moments of his life, even though we don’t like the thought of him in Heaven, would he have been denied it?

Those instances don’t have works involved - to the contrary they have things done by people who knew better but still did it knowingly.

That’s what God’s forgiveness is for. Nothing we can ever do can make us saved, except accepting Christ’s forgiveness.

That’s not to say though that you can do whatever the heck you want knowing you can just repent at the last second. Maybe you will die in a second and not get that chance. That’s why Christians generally like to do the “right thing” anyway. If you happen not to, you can still be forgiven without works.
Click to expand...
I have been going around and around about this on another thread (OSAS) so I wish to ask for a definition from a protestant perspective.

Based on your statement above about being “forgiven without works”, would you please tell me what you mean by “works” here?

Peace
James
 
Please stick to the OP’s topic, everyone. She is asking if her logic is correct, not for an argument about goodness or what good works are or any other side issue. If you wish to pursue side issues, please start new threads or take the discussion to existing threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you all.
 
Jean_Anthony said:
Please stick to the OP’s topic, everyone. She is asking if her logic is correct, not for an argument about goodness or what good works are or any other side issue. If you wish to pursue side issues, please start new threads or take the discussion to existing threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you all.
Click to expand...
Mea Culpa
 
Sorry , you’re right I forgot myself.

I will start a separate thread or Dude can either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top