Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[TULIPed]

Ah, but Europe invented an easy faith! No works! No charity. No good deeds.

Odd that you would end up with Protestant churches that send 50% or more of their annual budgets back out the door for mission work. Or Protestant churches that open up during hurricanes and other natural disasters to feed, clothe and house the homeless. Or well known Protestants like Eric Liddell or William Wilberforce or Dietrich Bonhoeffer - to name a few - along with countless nameless others that put their lives and reputations on the line every day for their faith. Or the many, many other acts of charity and selflessness that thousands of Protestant churches - like their Catholic brothers and sisters - do every day.

Why do they do this? Why do they even bother showing up on Sunday? My guess is that what we have in common - a shared love for Christ - is more important than what sets us apart. Unfortunately, I think we all spend far too much time focused on the ants of our theological differences as the elephants of poverty and spiritual darkness go marching by.

 

[Hodos]

The Catholic Church teaching on ‘works’ is not in relation to the works of the law . Its in reference to our work in Christ, to abide in His love. As St. Paul says …we must ‘‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’’. James - ‘‘Faith without works is dead’’.

Works such as the observing and keeping of the commandments of God, the partaking of the sacraments of the Church to preserve ones state of Grace (friendship with God), and the performing of works of Mercy (Corporal /spiritual) as Jesus commanded of us in the Gospel of Matthew and in John 15:4 … ‘’ Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

And Protestant teaching takes into account the role of works in the Christian life. We just don’t tie it to justification. We tie it to sanctification as Paul did.

 

[Nicene]

I always find it interesting when someone’s prooftext stops short of reading the whole passage. You forgot this part that Paul is building up to: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Ok lets look at the whole passage:

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
11 For God shows no partiality.
12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So Jews and Gentiles are both guilty of sin. And as with Ezek God writes his law on their hearts. So those in whom Keep the law from their hearts will be justified. This in fact is not the only instance in sacred scripture in which God tells us that one will be judged by his deeds. Now you say it leads into St. Pauls Gospel , yet the passage itself tells us this is in fact St. Pauls Gospel v16. Or lat least Part of it, the Gospel is much more that Jn 3:16.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, who God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith…For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

And herein lies one of the problems. In using this to nullify what was shown above in Romans 2:9-16 it creates a new gospel. One of Faith alone. However we see that Justification is a process when we truly look at sacred scripture. Initial justification in Baptism., and Final Justification at the judgement. The reformed view doesn’t include final justification. it just avoids it altogether as you have just shown. It didn’t answer it, just avoided it. St’ Paul and St. James, actually agree with Jesus Gospel. St James on the exact same topic:
cont.

 

[Nicene]

Jam 2:18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
They both agree. Now when you refer to chapter 3 St. Paul (which you earlier disqualified as part of the mosaic law in another post) is speaking of is in fact speaking of initial justification. You’ll continue to find he contrasts the “work of the law” Circumcision, with Baptism. But not with the works of love, which would completely nullify his Gospel. From a reformer point of view Justification is a legal one time deal. For a Catholic Justification is where the sinner is made Righteous and Just before God putting him in a right relationship with God when he infuses us with his Grace in baptism.

1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

St. Paul does in fact make distinctions between the “rites” of the old law which in fact do not sanctify nor justify the sinner and the law of love. However as we see above Baptism does (initial Justification). From the reformer point of view he doesn’t. But that also has to do with believing one is always totally depraved and not put in a right relationship with God through Christs sacrifice. He is covered over instead of being infused. Take for example Eph:

2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

On this we agree, however from a catholic point of view this is initial justification. You can do nothing to save yourself. But it continues:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Created IN Jesus, not cover over by him. And for what were we created?
cont

 

[Nicene]

Not sure what this has to do with the subject. Yes, by God’s grace, Stephen was given the power to perform signs and wonders to testify to the gospel. This does not speak to the topic of justification, but to the topic of the means by which the gospel was spread. Notice that justification is not even mentioned in this verse or passage in general.

Actually It does. It demonstrates that he was “Filled with Grace”, not covered over, not imputed. Grace of justification. In imputed Justification one is not “filled with grace” but is covered over but still totally depraved. Unless all those who have argued this here before are wrong. Are they wrong?

Thank you for distinguishing between your personal interpretation and actual doctrine. Many here are not so charitable. I respect that.

Actually it is also the doctrine of the church…Those who through no fault of their own… It is also why trinitarian baptism is accepted by the church, since it is God who infuses people in baptism and puts them in a right relationship with Him whether they believe it or not. God is the one taking the action.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Le_Cracquere]

In addition to the other reasons mentioned, I’d say there are far too many badly instructed Catholics who misunderstand or misphrase the Church’s teachings in ways that seem to justify Protestant suspicions.

 

[Hodos]

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
11 For God shows no partiality.

Right, if and if you follow Paul’s argument, his conclusion is that no one follows the law, all are unrighteous according to the law and are justly condemned by it. Which is why he offers us the means by which we are justified instead of condemned, which is by faith in Christ who is the propitiation made for us under the law.

And herein lies one of the problems. In using this to nullify what was shown above in Romans 2:9-16 it creates a new gospel. One of Faith alone. However we see that Justification is a process when we truly look at sacred scripture. Initial justification in Baptism., and Final Justification at the judgement.

Except that when Paul speaks of justification he speaks of it in the past aorist tense, as in the means by which we are justified is already completed. And when Protestants speak of being justified by faith alone, they are speaking as Paul did, by setting up the contrast between justification by works and justification by faith, which is precisely what Paul reiterates three times in Romans 3.

But not with the works of love, which would completely nullify his Gospel.

Feel free to show me where where works of love are mentioned by Paul in regard to justification. Works of love, which comes from 1 Corinthians is speaking about how Christians act in such a way as to worship in unity, by submitting to one another. This is not a passage addressing the topic of justification.

1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

And this passage speaks directly to what we are saying with regard to the difference between sanctification and justification. All of which are also in the aorist tense (finished work).

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Which fits exactly into what I was saying earlier. We are justified by faith (stated emphatically three times in Ephesians 2:1-10) as opposed to works (stated explicitly in verses 8-9). However, as I stated earlier, we were saved for a reason, which is to walk with God doing the works he prepared. Once again though, Paul has explicitly stated you are not saved by works but by faith. So works are necessary in the Christian life. Not for justification, but because it is the manifestation of faith outwardly working God’s purpose in the world. Which again, our confessions affirm. Have you read the Augsburd Confession, which I suggested earlier? I feel like you don’t understand what we profess.

 

[AtheistNoMore]

I just want to know, how can the sacraments be considered “works?” They are gifts from Christ to us.

 

[Hodos]

Actually It does. It demonstrates that he was “Filled with Grace”, not covered over, not imputed. Grace of justification. In imputed Justification one is not “filled with grace” but is covered over but still totally depraved. Unless all those who have argued this here before are wrong. Are they wrong?

No it doesn’t. It acknowledges the fact that our righteousness is not my own, but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the requirements of the law perfectly, and paid the penalty for my sin. Impute means to credit to ones account. Kind of like God credited righteousness to Abraham by faith, Paul’s explicit example in both Galatians and Romans. And again, this passage is not referring to Stephen’s being justified but the Holy Spirit working through Stephen equipping him to proclaim the gospel.

God is the one taking the action.

I completely agree that God is the one carrying out the action in baptism, in justification, and in sanctification. This is why we hold to the confession that we do. We (Lutherans) are divine monergists, and believe in the sacramental nature of Baptism and Holy Communion. Coincidentally, Lutherans believe that even in Paedobaptism faith is involved on the part of the child in that we believe that through baptism, faith is given by grace to the child. At no point is one saved by works apart from faith. If you have questions on this, I think the Babylonian Captivity of the Church does a good job explaining what we believe with regard to Baptism. You would have to start with the section on Holy Communion which explains Luther’s understanding of a covenant, which he explains more fully in that section, then progress to the section on Baptism.

 

[Nicene]

No it doesn’t. It acknowledges the fact that our righteousness is not my own, but the righteousness of Christ who fulfilled the requirements of the law perfectly, and paid the penalty for my sin. Impute means to credit to ones account. Kind of like God credited righteousness to Abraham by faith, Paul’s explicit example in both Galatians and Romans. And again, this passage is not referring to Stephen’s being justified but the Holy Spirit working through Stephen equipping him to proclaim the gospel.

Yes I understand and that is again what separates us. To credit to ones account is a legal mechanism vs. infusion which changes the character of the soul of the individual. Again it says “filled with Grace” not covered over with grace. Unless I’m mistaken is it not the position of the Lutherans that justification is a grace? So in your last sentence Stephen had actually nothing to do with it, (synergism) he was forced to say those things by God i.e. regardless of whether or not the person cooperates with Him. (Monergism.)

That’s not really loving God is it? Is it love when someone (God) forces you to love them?

We (Lutherans) are divine monergists, and believe in the sacramental nature of Baptism and Holy Communion.

Isn’t it the Lutheran position that there is monoergist salvation and synergist damnation? (Essentially all Catholics, Orthodox and Methodists are damned). (I get this is fairly charged, however it’s not meant to antagonize, so don’t take it that way.) In short it believes those three groups are semi palegian.

At no point is one saved by works apart from faith.

Everybody agrees on that.

You would have to start with the section on Holy Communion which explains Luther’s understanding of a covenant, which he explains more fully in that section, then progress to the section on Baptism.

Thanks, I’ll have to take a look at Luther’s understanding of a covenant. I never really thought of it before. I have the Lutheran shorter catechism, is it in there or somewhere else?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

FWIW before this deteriorates (which I hope it doesn’t) Lutherans are the closest to Catholics outside of Orthodox in day to day life. I have a lot of good Lutheran friends and I know they have been infused with Gods grace whether they believe it or not.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Rau]

In short, with Catholics, Faith and good works go together, one is not complete without the other.

Yes. In fact to rightly claim “faith” should be an assurance that one’s life is filled with good works. If it is not, then the claim of “faith” is suspect.

 

[Hodos]

Yes I understand and that is again what separates us. To credit to ones account is a legal mechanism vs. infusion which changes the character of the soul of the individual. Again it says “filled with Grace” not covered over with grace. Unless I’m mistaken is it not the position of the Lutherans that justification is a grace? So in your last sentence Stephen had actually nothing to do with it, (synergism) he was forced to say those things by God i.e. regardless of whether or not the person cooperates with Him. (Monergism.)

That’s not really loving God is it? Is it love when someone (God) forces you to love them?

If you refer to 2 Peter, all prophecy is directed by the Holy Spirit. Notice that the Holy Spirit gets the credit, not the person. We don’t believe that someone like Stephen is an automaton, and as Paul states Stephen is someone who is being conformed to the likeness of Christ. However, you are confusing the issue. Stephen is already justified by God. What you are talking about here is a matter of sanctification. We don’t conflate the two things. Grace simply means that God is freely giving of the Holy Spirit to outfit Stephen to fulfill the work he is being led to perform. This isn’t his attribute apart from Christ or the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit working through him in sanctification. The entire book of Acts is about the Holy Spirit leading the Church to fulfill the great commission. The Holy Spirit is the one who gets the credit in Acts. However, none of this happens without God’s free gift of his Son, or the Holy Spirit calling me to faith and sustaining me in the faith. The explanation of the Third Article of the Apostle’s Creed in the small catechism would help explain what we believe about the work of the Holy Spirit if that helps.

Isn’t it the Lutheran position that there is monoergist salvation and synergist damnation?

No. Salvation is by divine monergism. But you are responsible for your own damnation.

Thanks, I’ll have to take a look at Luther’s understanding of a covenant. I never really thought of it before. I have the Lutheran shorter catechism, is it in there or somewhere else?

The Large and Small catechisms both address it, but I think the clearest articulation of what we believe about how baptism or Holy Communion works is in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. It is worth the read. Keep in mind it is a polemical response to attacks on Luther’s theology, so sometimes he is very blunt, but if you read to understand his theology behind the sacraments I think you will find he is dead on.

 

[strita]

If I’m not mistaken, Dr David Anders reminded his radio audience on this topic that everywhere Christ talks about judgment, it will be for our works.

They must be important for that reason and because we are so often urged to perform good works.

I haven’t read all the comments, but I think that with protestants it is important to be able to quote scripture as much as possible.

Now, here I’m not doing what I just said, but, anyway, the Protestant revulsion with works probably arises owing to St Paul’s remarks about not being saved by the works of the Law. That seems to be a very selective, “proof-text” approach to scripture, as opposed to the Catholic "canonical approach where we look at all of scripture before we answer the question about works.

It’s very clear that Paul rejects the ideas that Gentile converts should perform works of the Law, like circumcision, whereas some of Christ’s most famous sayings include action words like “go” “teach” “baptize” “make disciples” etc. Those are “works” in my book.

Are we saved by these works? Well, we will be judged by them. What do you think?

 

[po18guy]

Mission work often or even primarily stealing Catholics.

I see no charity in misguidedly leading souls away from Christ.

 

[po18guy]

1. Who on earth picks apart the scriptures, verse by verse, and stumbles along as if in a fog? Is this not nonsensical? The scriptures are, in the fashion of Jesus’ garment, a seamless whole. Pick them apart and you make yourself the blind leading the blind. Not even Jean Cauvin did that.
2. False dichotomy! The second Protestant Pope, Philipp Melanchthon, wrote an extensive apologia harmonizing James with the writings of Saint Paul. There is no conflict.

Touché

 

[TULIPed]

Who on earth picks apart the scriptures, verse by verse, and stumbles along as if in a fog? Is this not nonsensical? The scriptures are, in the fashion of Jesus’ garment, a seamless whole. Pick them apart and you make yourself the blind leading the blind. Not even Jean Cauvin did that.

Agree totally.

False dichotomy! The second Protestant Pope, Philipp Melanchthon, wrote an extensive apologia harmonizing James with the writings of Saint Paul. There is no conflict.

Totally agree - no conflict. Feels like we’re in violent agreement. Always good - unless of course you’re agreeing about directions in a car about to go over a cliff.

 

[po18guy]

Just humble yourself. Go before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Be as patient with Him as He has been with you. And when you receive your consolation, you will be changed.

Word made Flesh.

Word.

 

[ralfyman]

Jesus’ two great commandments argue that we need faith and works.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I usually tell Protestants that good works are the fruits of our faith. Why stop at faith? even demons have faith.