B
beeper
Guest
I am really curious…Do you talk to a lot of protestants that honestly think they can just say “I believe” and forget about works?
- Status
M
Milliardo
Guest
Again, no go. Ephesians 2:10 says we are made to do good works that God has prepared–nothing there that would imply that it is simply the fruit of justification, or else non-Christians wouldn’t be capable of doing good. The point of Paul there is that these works have been made available for us; use them.
D
dbonneville
Guest
Yes. I was one for the last 20 years. I thought that at first, but as I grew in my understanding of Judaism, I changed. I learned from good sources what was Jewish and what was not. The worst place to learn about Judaism is from Protestants, and the worst place to learn about Catholicism is from Protestants, which goes without saying. Jewish understanding of faith and works led me to Catholicism, via the Anglican Church. I was up until recently in the ordination track for becoming an Anglican priest.
It’s a common understanding that Christians believe that ancient (and current) Jews believe they are saved by works. Toss the Catholics in there. Jews, nor Catholics, ever believed this, but this is the generic Protestant understanding. It’s the biggest Protestant misunderstanding about the Law, and is all pervasive. They love to quote Eph 2:8-9, though you never hear that much about vs10, which said that God himself ordained good works is the “walk of life” for believers. The corollary is “no good works, no salvation”. This is painfully simple unless you have Luther-isms sitting on your shoulder saying “no, it doesn’t say that” though it says it right there.
Protestants ubiquitously emphasize that you don’t need good works to be saved. It’s a stereotype of a Protestant, rather an archetype, who says “You don’t have to do good works to be save, it’s by grace. The Catholics believe you just do good works to get in heaven.”
I’ve had countless “chats” with Baptist and other friends and family over the years that are adamant that salvation is a one-time event, a legal transaction, and no works are needed, lest the cross of Christ is profaned. So, again, Yes, I know lot’s of people that believe this with a passion and get all kinds of spittle in the corner of their mouth when you suggest they might be wrong. That is not a joke either, it’s very real and very sad, and it’s a teaching that ruins lives, lives of people I personally know. But it’s the people without good works, real good works, that get the most nutty. Watch out for those ones.
D
dbonneville
Guest
Beeper: I see you quoted Eph 2:10 before I got my post up. My post still stands, and the reasoning is spot on, as is the post before mine, because we are saying the same thing. Read the verse again…really read it:
The passage simply, and effortlessly, not in response to any perceived problem or controversy, that God created us in Jesus directly into good works. Like a car is made to drive down the road. This is so glaringly poignant. How can you possibly weave your way out of that? “Created unto good works”, and then it’s qualified further as to emphasize the point - it was ordained in some previous time by God for us to “walk” in them, which is a Hebraism for manner of living. Some translations say “to be our manner of life”. How can you and why would you try to split hairs to get these two things apart?
It is inseparable and indivisible that works and salvation are inextricably linked. If you try to separate them, all you can do is not make sense anymore, which you are doing to some degree on this post. The entire OT and NT no longer make any cohesive sense when works are separated from salvation. That is, drum roll, the entire point of salvation. Is it not? Or is it just to “get to heaven, whew”?
Where is the concept of this being fruit? That’s bad hermeneutics - you’d get an F in theology class for suggesting that 8-9 have to do with setting up v10 to be about fruit.
The passage simply, and effortlessly, not in response to any perceived problem or controversy, that God created us in Jesus directly into good works. Like a car is made to drive down the road. This is so glaringly poignant. How can you possibly weave your way out of that? “Created unto good works”, and then it’s qualified further as to emphasize the point - it was ordained in some previous time by God for us to “walk” in them, which is a Hebraism for manner of living. Some translations say “to be our manner of life”. How can you and why would you try to split hairs to get these two things apart?
It is inseparable and indivisible that works and salvation are inextricably linked. If you try to separate them, all you can do is not make sense anymore, which you are doing to some degree on this post. The entire OT and NT no longer make any cohesive sense when works are separated from salvation. That is, drum roll, the entire point of salvation. Is it not? Or is it just to “get to heaven, whew”?
S
SimonArizona
Guest
I read it and it doesn’t say that.
Show me where it says this in the Bible:
you see that works are the fruit of the jusification that you have
That is a perfect example of “if protestants wrote the bible.”
Let me show you what the Bible* actually* says
and I’ll show you the one verse where faith alone appears.
“see then how a man is not justified by faith alone. But how his works work with his faith and by his works is his faith made perfect.”-St. James the less
Come on now, who is being unbiblical?
who is wresting the scriptures?
Show me where your verse is please. Its not in eph2:egyptian:
L
lyrikal
Guest
Faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is faith…
T
tptram
Guest
M
Milliardo
Guest
I think she’s just following the thought of this thread…
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Agree - sarcasm through conspicuous contradiction to make a point is usually too subtle for most in these forums.
I understood her… “Love trumps all” - even poor polemics and dogged committment to protestant ‘scripture-spin’…
Let’s love em all into heaven - its their best chance…
James
B
beeper
Guest
Why would verse Ephesians 2:8 and 9 have anything to do with verse 10??? Because most people read the verses prior and after to get context so they don’t misintrepret what is being said. Why would someone read Ephesians 2:10 without understanding the context that surrounds it? Paul makes it clear that you are saved by grace thru faith, Not by works, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works so that no one may boast. Where in verse 8 and 9 does it say you are saved by works??? It states the exact opposite. Then goes on in verse 10 to explain “we are created in Christ Jesus for good works”…We can’t begin to do good works for Christ until we are apart of HIm. Read Romans 6. "THerefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that CHrist was raised from the dead through the glory of Father, so that we too might walk in newness of life… Once you are united with Christ then good works flow. Hence, good works cannot produce salvation but are subsequent and resultant God-empowered fruits. It is poor theology to think that Paul is stating you are saved by grace thru faith and not by works in verse 8 and 9 and then turns around in verse 10 and contradicts himself. So yes we are created Christ Jesus for good works, but only after grace thru faith.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, for one thing, Paul (or any other Biblical author, for that matter) did not write his letters with chapter-and-verse divisions so it’s pretty safe to say that what he says in verse 10 must be logically connected to the preceding and following verses. Unless Paul’s train of thought was actually wandering when he wrote this epistle…
Q
quasimodo
Guest
the key is that it can never be a faith versus works discussion. faith and works must be two sides of one coin.
D
dbonneville
Guest
You are splitting hairs. v8-10 need to be read on the whole. They are one in the same. v10 is the explanation of v8-9.
Think of it like leaving your house to go to Alaska. You leave the house and go to Alaska, right? You don’t think of it like “Now that have left my house, and stand outside, I can commence heading to Alaska”. No, but rather, going to Alaska is the reason you step out of the house. You are hung up on dividing a statement that needs no dividing. It needs no qualification from Paul. He wasn’t dividing the issue in his mind or on paper here in front of us.
But lets suppose for a second it’s really ambiguous. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Who might be a good third source to weigh in and tilt the scale one way or the other? Well, I’d enlist a Jew from Paul’s day. He would maybe quote the Midrash and say something like “Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves because they were devoid of truly good works”, meaning that they weren’t having faith, and were doing bad works (fig leaves) to cover there shame (no good works = naked). This is an actual quote from the Midrash, very ancient pre-Christian commentary on OT Scripture.
If he listened to both of our opinions, he understand mine, and as the rest of Eph goes on to explain, the point of the Gospel is to spread to those outside of the “commonwealth of Israel” as Paul puts it. Eph demonstrates that Christianity is “Judaism internationalized” in a sense, and what Judaism looks like when you get rid of the law, according to Paul the “wall of separation” that divides Jews from Gentiles.
The real question is this: did Jesus start a new religion or did he take what the essence of Judaism, and enable it to be spread to all Nations? A further reading of Eph in ch1 and 2 makes this super-abundantly clear: the Gospel was contained, and locked, in Judiasm, but Jesus broke it out of that mold, tore the “curtain” as it where, and enabled it to spread to the whole world, not just the Jews of “the commonwealth of Israel”. It’s all right there in Eph, and this broader understanding settles that matter. A Jew in Paul’s day wouldn’t have a clue as to what you were talking about, but he would readily understand what I’m saying, and what the rest of the NT is saying. That, my friend, is why the early Church was nearly entirely Jewish. They understood this very clearly, and it was no great leap for them to understand the new birth, the new creation, as described in Eph 2:v8-10. Your understanding of these verses is novel, and entirely without history or foundation, except in perhaps Calvinistic / Lutheran theology from the Reformation forward.
B
beeper
Guest
I am really curious…Do you talk to a lot of protestants that honestly think they can just say “I believe” and forget about works?
D
dbonneville
Guest
This is not the Catholic view. Righteousness is from Jesus alone. It’s not a legal transaction as Western minds imagine, but a Covenant. This is the historic Jewish position which Christianity embraced in the “New Covenant”. It’s not called the “New Contract”. It’s still one-sided, like it was with Abraham. God gives us his righteousness and then requires - requires, really - that we obey. “If you love you will obey me”. If you don’t obey you don’t love Jesus. If you don’t love Jesus, well, you aren’t a believer. You can’t parse it apart - it’s not designed to be divided apart like Reformed theology strains to demonstrate.
Here are some definitions of covenant worth considering:
- a signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action
- (Bible) an agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behavior from them in return
- A covenant, in its most general sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action.
- An agreement to do or not do a particular thing; A promise, incidental to a deed or contract, either express or implied
- An agreement written into deeds and other instruments promising performance or non-performance of certain acts, or stipulating certain uses or non-uses of the property.
- A clause in a contract; an agreement contained in a deed for the performance or non-performance of certain acts.
- A written agreement or promise of two or more parties by which either pledges to perform or not to perform specified acts
- A clause in a mortgage that obligates or restricts the borrower and that, if violated, can result in foreclosure
- An agreement or promise by deed, by which one party pledges to the other that something has been done or will be done, or stipulates for the truth of certain facts. He who promises is called the covenanter; and he to whom the promise is made is the covantee.
- A covenant is an agreement, contract, or promise. It may be in the affirmative such as the representation as to certain facts or the future performance of an act, or it may be in the negative such as the obligation not to do something
- A clause in a contract that obligates or restricts the parties and if broken, can result in a legal action
The thief had no possible means of performing any good deeds. Hence the passage “to him who knows to good and does not do it, it is a sin” would correlate to the simple understanding that to him who knows to do good but cannot, it is not a sin. We are constrained by conscience and ability. The thief could be viewed much like a paralytic, who could do nothing, but yet God has mercy on him. So the thief demonstrates the principle of conscience, and not of works vs faith. He believed - that is all that was required for him.
D
dbonneville
Guest
Calvinists go in circles. They say if someone never bore fruit they were never saved to begin with because you can’t “fall away”. It’s hopeless to discuss if you are Calvinist. But assuming you aren’t, your statement is true. Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits”. Notice he didn’t say “faith”.
This is Judaism, and this is Jesus. Have you read the parable about the sheep and the goats? Notice he doesn’t make anyone a sheep or a goat. He acknowledges who is already a sheep and already a goat. Free will is at work here, and people are what they are. Jesus was a Jew, and a good Jew at that. He agreed with what the Pharisees taught and told the crowds to “do what they say” when they taught from the seat of Moses, but not do “do as they do”.
If you ask most Protestants “do you have to do good works to get to heaven” they will respond “no”. But it’s a loaded “no”. Same with asking a Catholic who will respond “yes”. But the difference is that a Protestant goes off into theology and the Catholic just means “yes, of course”. You have to be the “new creation in Christ” who does good works because that is the essence of having been made a new creation, as Eph 2 states.
There is no verse that says “faith alone justifies”. But there are many verses that say the opposite. And it takes absurd, immature, vain, confusing and preposterous scriptural gymnastics to avoid a verse like this from James:
“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone”
You take the Bible at face value right? Well, this flies in the face of all the “alone” banter from the last 500 years. Why did Luther want to get rid of James? Because of verses like this. The absurd manueverings of Protestant theologians about how James is really talking about “righteousness before men” is just stupid. How can you read it that way with a straight face? James is blunt, like a sledgehammer here. It’s just in your face “works”. It’s inescapable, like a tsunami. Read a few:
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
The answer is faith without works is no good. It’s incomplete.
“faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”
But you say the opposite, you say:
This is where Protestants go in circles for no good reason, like a whack-a-mole game. It’s not mature thinking to say “well, they were never a believer”. If that could be true, then what on earth is the point of James. Someone better talk to him! But no, James rants on:
“You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?”
Do you want more evidence? I can give it…
“…was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies?”
Or how about this?
“Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar”
The point is this:
“faith and … actions were working together, and … faith was made complete by what he did”
Faith is incomplete without works. Why is this impossible to grasp? It’s not hard in the least. In fact it’s so simple that James proves it beyond any shadow of doubt in just a few verses. Do you disagree with James? And don’t get into the whole “justified in the eyes of man” baloney. That’s absurd! Read again what it says:
“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone”
Now, I agree with this. I agree that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
“…not by faith alone”
Did you catch that? Luther is just wrong. Woops. Oops. D’oh!
This is how we should live:
“Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do”
If you can’t show your faith, you don’t have any.
But you insist that faith alone saves. I beg to differ. In fact, you can’t be saved by faith alone as I just quoted. In fact:
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
The answer is no. Where is the artful dodging? This is a devastating blow to Protestant theology, and that is why they say James isn’t really talking about justification before God, just men. How dumb is that? C’mon! Read the words, literally. He is not talking about anything other than regular, plain, simple justification. There is no division between “justification before God” and “justification before men”. Unless you are Protestant and you HAVE to invest the schism to explain how James doesn’t really mean EXACTLY what he says in plain English or Greek.
I leave you with this thought:
“As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
You cannot separate faith from deeds. They are one in the same. You cannot divide the Trinity, and you cannot divide Jesus the Man from Jesus the Lord. Yes, indeed, faith without deeds is DEAD.
You can’t possibly disagree with this. Why not concede you are wrong, through and through? Is that possible? Is there any possibility, at all, that you have been mistaught and misled? If there is no possibility, then you have your case of “Lutheran Infallibility” or “Calvinistic Infallibility” on your hands because they are teaching a doctrine that is “new” by Catholic standards, and Jewish, and is really a whole new paradigm of reality. And that is another can worms indeed! But I stand by James this!
“As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
Unless the body can live without the spirit, that is, as Protestants suggest. Yikes!
Q
quasimodo
Guest
I’ve noticed that straw men tend to talk past each other.
James chapter 2 contemplates a “dead faith.” A dead faith does not justify, save, sanctify, cover, impute or anything else. What we need is a living faith. The bible also tells us what brings faith to life in. It is one coin with two sides - the Church recognizes that both sides of the coin are necessary. It is not the Church that says deeds matter, it is Christ.
gotta run
James chapter 2 contemplates a “dead faith.” A dead faith does not justify, save, sanctify, cover, impute or anything else. What we need is a living faith. The bible also tells us what brings faith to life in. It is one coin with two sides - the Church recognizes that both sides of the coin are necessary. It is not the Church that says deeds matter, it is Christ.
We might say “with” but never “plus.”
Is this the snow covered dung image? If it is, we would say that dung is dung even if covered by snow and dung has no place in heaven.
Most of us recognize that one cannot ever say “Protestants believe ‘X’.” There are a multitude of denominations and many don’t agree with much of what their own denomination preaches. That this is the fruits of sola scriptura cannot be denied as Luther discovered to his chagrin. You are surely entitled to speak for your self (and bless you for it), but there are too many Protestants who say and act otherwise and too many converts here who were taught otherwise.
But I’ve known so many that put on a pious show and fell short otherwise. So it is not necessarily automatic, immediate or permanent. Original sin.
This is not a surprise or a problem for Catholic theology. We find great solace in death bed conversions. A friend’s father just did this. We understand that God, through Jesus, has set down the lines on the playing field and given us the rules of the game, but God Himself is not limited by either. Blessed be God in His mercy.
Was it? Or was it his acknowledgment of his sin, his contrition and his defense of Jesus from the attack of the other thief plus his plea for mercy?
We speak a different language, so if by this you are referring to Calvin’s Total Depravity, on that we do disagree - damaged - obviously but not utterly - we are still made in the imago dei.
The bible contemplates dead faith and the church recognizes its existence and so she makes sure she includes that thing which brings faith alive when she is teaching. This may be the main difference here - we mean different things by the word “faith.” You use it in a bigger sense, we use it in a more limited sense. Both are acceptable as long as we are clear and the theologies takes that meaning into account.
gotta run
S
SimonArizona
Guest
S
SimonArizona
Guest
Therefore what ultimately places us under God’s condemning judgement is our sin not our good works. The theif was able to withstand God’s condemning judgement only because he had Jesus to intercede for him. Therefore he was saved by faith alone by the righteousness of christ alone…Also, protestants would say that applies to everybody regardless of the situation—but remember thats not to say works are not vitally and crucially necessary for the christian! When someone goes to court and has committed murder, does the fact that he helped granny smith across the street 500 times negate the fact that he still deserves the punishment of death? Again, sin separates and puts us under God’s judgement. So therefore the only way for the murderer to survive the judgment is to have someone pay his penalty. The murderer is unholy, unrighteous (even if he did do 500 works), and has no shot of going free if the judge exercises perfect judgement. Same goes for us…God is holy and the perfect judge, we are not holy, have sinned, and deserve hell. But, God loves us, and sent Jesus to intercede for us. Thats what protestants view of alone is and that is a fundamental difference…When a protestant stands before God at judgement he should understand that he is unholy, unrighteous, and deserves hell. No no, although not even the stars are pure in God’s eyes, you better not stand unholy before God. By Grace alone we are being made holy, sinful works impede our processs of being made holy, thus, putting away those sinful works is necessary for salvation. Putting away sinful works=good works. -]There is not one ounce of righteousness in him./-] The only way to survive is by Jesus alone. Again, if you dont show the evidence of works in your life once you submit to God you dont have faith to begin with!! Many believe in Jesus and do evil (devils) look at what James said. and again "They profess they know Him but deny Him by their works." So Jesus is the -]root/-] source/vine of justification, works are the fruit **“and those who don’t produce fruit the Father cuts down and throws to the fire.” so how can you say works are not necessary for salvation? because you will say they never had faith to begin with. They sure did! “haven’t we cast out devils in Thy name Jesus and prophecy in thy name Jesus?” I never knew you , you that work iniquity."…**on the other hand… a Catholic truly obtains a piece of righteous that truly belongs to them at baptism. Infused -]righteous/-] Grace. Then if they cooperate with that -]righteous/-]Grace by works (communion, penace, Eucharist etc Deny self take up Cross daily) you will slowly and continually gain more and more-] righteousness/-]. Holiness. So then after purgatory you can stand before God and survive judgement because you yourself really are Holy -]righteous/-]. Granted you couldnt have done it without Christ. I think your religion calls this a “legal diction”. Rome says, God cant ultimately justify anyone unless he or she is actually “just” themselves. Obviously this is a major difference from the protestant who says **Right sola-fide says that God overlooks your sinfulness because of Christ’s work and declares you righteous soley based on Christ’s work but JESUS SAID “he who denies himself and takes up his cross and follows me.”…**but im not righteous in any way and can never stand before Christ in a state of righteous because I am a sinner. Paul wrote to the “Saints in Christ Jesus.” I can never do enough to obtain the righteousness required for God to declare me Justified, Never but you can stop sinning by taking up your cross and suffer with Christ and become truly clean, not just declared clean…I understand both views disagree, but protestants never meant to say that works are not necessary or required for the christian life. Again works are evidence of your faith. They just say works have no part in justifying you since its ultimately sin that seperates you from God. You suvive the judgement based on Jesus alone. Your works can’t negate your sins before God. So if your works do justify you, then grace would no longer be grace. Im not a scholar but I am just trying to explain the fundamental difference with the word “alone” cause there are misconceptions on both sides. Your loving thoughts??
My thoughts, I hope that helps you.
My thoughts, I hope that helps you.
B
beeper
Guest
So in general…do protestants go to heaven?
- Status