Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[fhansen]

Yep. You should hope so. Your salvation depends on it. But again, you ignored the rest of our theology where works are addressed. Funny how that happens in polemical quips.

While there are different theological positions on Sola Fide within Protestant ranks, what it still always boils down to is the same; man is no longer obligated to be actually righteous because Christ’s righteousness covers man’s unrighteousness. Righteousness is effectively separated from, well… righteousness, true justice from justification. But that is not the gospel. We depend on Gods mercy and forgiveness, and rescuing us from being lost, but that is the means to being righteous, to ‘go, and sin no more’, as we’re still obligated to do, not an escape from that demand. We now do it under grace, by the spirit, the right way, no longer under the law. We can now work out our salvation with He who works in us since we’ve established a communion with Him, a communion that we were made for, initiated by the gift of faith.

Our salvation depends finally on what we do with everything we’ve been given, with more expected from those given more-because God wants us to do our part, however small. Properly understood the gospel proclaims a simple truth that the Church teaches: "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Except it doesn’t. That is why there are 15 more chapters in Romans. Chapter one leads to chapter 2, which leads to chapter 3, which leads to chapter 4, etc.

Of course it does-and does so consistently with the rest of Romans along with the rest of Scripture.

Exactly, the law always accuses. You are guilty is what Paul says in the first half of Romans 3. Keep moving forward. If you read the rest of Romans 3 you will be on your way.

The law also teaches-that we cannot fulfill its demands-the demands of righteousness- on our own. Only the “righteousness of God” can do that because we possess none on our own. "Apart from Me you can do nothing."

 

[fhansen]

“Article IV: Of Justification. Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by his death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in his sight. Rom. 3 and 4.”

And this is so wrong-or stifled. We’re justified because we believe we’re justified??? And so we just have to hang on to that belief since that’s all there is to it? It depends on us?

In truth faith is a humble acceptance of God’s existence, goodness, mercy, forgiveness and love. It’s the beginning of a relationship of our cooperating and working with Him, turning away from the world, a relationship that’s ultimately meant to blossom into love for Himself and our neighbor. Because that, love, is the true measure of man’s justice or righteousness. And love is both a gift and a choice, a virtue which can grow as the choice is acted on and solidified and confirmed.

 

[Hodos]

And this is so wrong-or stifled. We’re justified because we believe we’re justified??? And so we just have to hang on to that belief since that’s all there is to it? It depends on us ?

Nope. I am justified because the God who created the Universe became incarnate and was made man, and dwelt among us, perfectly fulfilling the law and God’s will, then died as a substitutionary atonement for my sin, that the curse of the law would be fulfilled in him, and that his righteousness might be credited to me (2 Corinthians 5:21). Through the Holy Spirit working through Baptism and the proclamation of the gospel I have been given faith in his word that “It is finished,” and called to him. This faith has given me trust, just as a helpless child (Matthew 18:3), that his promises have been fulfilled in Christ and the expectation that Christ’s work will be fulfilled in me. As you can see, our theology is wholly dependent upon Christ.

 

[fhansen]

As you can see, our theology is wholly dependent upon Christ.

And that’s correct in the sense that we cannot possibly be saved without the Savior, yes. But not in the sense that we cannot yet refuse His offer of salvation, or turn away from it at any point down the road. Belief is both a gift-and an option at the same time.

 

[Hodos]

And that’s correct in the sense that we cannot possibly be saved without the Savior, yes. But not in the sense that we cannot yet refuse His offer of salvation, or turn away from it at any point down the road. Belief is both a gift-and an option at the same time.

I am Lutheran. I do not believe in double predestination if that is what you are getting at. That being said, I still don’t get the credit for not refusing grace. It is the Holy Spirit that keeps and sustains me in the faith. Apart from him, I would not.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I am assuming that they’ve at least been to a Catholic church, or know what they look like. What do they think the stained glass windows telling the Life of Christ are for? What do they think the crucifix by the altar is for? If we thought we didn’t need Christ, it would be kind of pointless to have those things there. Why do the readings at Mass always include a reading from the gospel? Assuming someone has never been to a Catholic Mass, what do they think the homily is? It usually has to do with the readings. The very theology that many Protestants think that Catholics believe, has been officially condemned as a heresy by the Catholic Church, it is called pelagianism, make sure your friend knows that.

 

[fhansen]

I am Lutheran. I do not believe in double predestination if that is what you are getting at. That being said, I still don’t get the credit for not refusing grace. It is the Holy Spirit that keeps and sustains me in the faith. Apart from him, I would not.

And yet I thought Lutherans believe that grace is resistible.

 

[jmgi1957]

If good works do not play a role in our salvation, then what does Matthew 25:31-46 mean? Sure looks to me like good works play a role and not just faith in Jesus, doesn’t it?

 

[BohemianBrother]

Of course both catholic and protestant traditions consider faith and good works as basically inseparable.

Consider this: A genuine deathbed conversion is enough for salvation, but a life of good works done without the aims of love and faith is rightly condemned. (I mean pelagianism.)

Protestant “faith” isn’t a mere intellectual assent, it is among other things an inner wish to do good works, even if they fail to come to fruition in this corrupt world. Salvation comes from the faith that necessarily proceeds to do good works.

Sometimes I feel like we are closer to each other than we think, we just use different terminology. I feel sad for your protestant friends, I know many people like that myself. It’s really only a product of factionalism. People are too quick to dismiss others’ views and elevate their own. We all want our team to “win” and others to “lose”, but we lose truth and love in doing that.

 

[Hodos]

And yet I thought Lutherans believe that grace is resistible.

You know, we have a whole book of documents that state, pretty clearly what we believe. Maybe you should read it instead of insisting on your assumptions, then come back and discuss.

 

[fhansen]

Well, it wasn’t really an assumption since I based that on what I’ve read in the past. So you an avoid the question-or, alternatively, answer it, whether it’s your personal opinion or that of your church. It was simple enough. Does man’s will play any role; can he say “no” to God’s graceful overtures?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

PS Luther taught what you just said. “Sin and sin mightily, and grace will abound the more.”

No kidding. Please point me to the quote, I’d like to read it as I’ve never heard this before. Perhaps @Hodos might have a bit to say about this…

I’d like to hear it. Although a quick search of the internet did not provide the source of that quote, I have had it in the past and will continue searching. However, there are other quotes of his that say virtually the same thing and are easier to find, today. Such as, to Melancthon:

“If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world…"

And then, there’s the one from a letter to Jerome Weller.

Whenever the devil harasses you thus, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil,…Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever.

And remember that Luther is the same guy who promoted bigotry and adultery. So, I have no trouble believing that he thought of sin as some kind of sacrament.

 

[Hodos]

Well, it wasn’t really an assumption since I based that on what I’ve read in the past. So you an avoid the question-or, alternatively, answer it, whether it’s your personal opinion or that of your church. It was simple enough. Does man’s will play any role; can he say “no” to God’s graceful overtures?

I had already answered your question above on at least two occasions.

 

[fhansen]

I had already answered your question above on at least two occasions.

Ok, I’m not trying to be pesky but only to understand and address the differences in our positions. You said,
“As you can see, our theology is wholly dependent upon Christ.”
and
“It is the Holy Spirit that keeps and sustains me in the faith. Apart from him, I would not.”

Maybe you were more specific elsewhere but in any case the RCC also teaches that we cannot cooperate with or say “yes” to God without the Holy Spirit enabling us, and yet we can still say “no” either way. This distinction means that God will not force our wills, and it means, in fact, that He wants them involved, and increasingly so, such that we “own” our choices and therefore the righteousness that only He can impart to us. Because He wants that for us. So, IOW, God is immensely pleased with our faith because we accept it, rather than because He forces it upon us, which wouldn’t offer much of a reason for being pleased to begin with. Here’s a related teaching from the catechism:

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil , and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

This is not taking away from the necessity of God’s saving initiative-it’s simply defining the role that man’s will must play in it all.

 

[Hodos]

Thank you for your clarification. The Lutheran approach is that if I am saved, it is because of the work of the Triune God, and he gets the credit. If I am an apostate, the responsibility is on me and I am held accountable for my sin. We don’t go beyond that understanding because quite frankly scripture doesn’t. The danger in taking the step beyond scripture that your explanation provides is that, from our perspective, it collapses distinctions that should not be collapsed and places an emphasis on myself, even tending to view faith as my work, rather than God’s gift given through the Holy Spirit. This is why we refuse to go that extra step. Luther’s Bondage of the Will I think illustrates that quite nicely. I hope that explains.

 

[Chistian-ity]

As a non-believer, who do you think more closely conforms to the word of the Bible? Also, what drives you to use CAF?

Just curious

 

[FiveLinden]

I don’t see ‘the Bible’ as one book.The NT is 27 books written at different times. Even though the Church excluded books from the canon that were not in line with prevailing views (what became ‘tradition’) they reflect different perspectives. For example I don’t see anything in the first three Gospels that clearly indicates they believed Jesus to be God. I think to argue this requires prior belief. If you were not aware John, or Paul, you would not think such a thing by reading the first three. I understand this is not the Catholic position.

I enjoy being on CAF and learning more about the nature of belief and what makes people believe things I see no evidence for. In my personal life I try hard not to believe anything, but only to draw conclusions from observations. I find it hard. I think we are hard-wired to accept authority and believe things on ‘faith’. I think this and religion is so ubiquitous in society that it must have conferred an evolutionary advantage on our ancestors. Thanks for asking.

 

[TULIPed]

But again, you ignored the rest of our theology where works are addressed.

Why does this happen do you think? It’s almost like folks go out of their way to find offense and “heresy”. It happens on our side too. I have to tell my Reformed friends to go and actually read the RCC (and maybe even talk to a Catholic) before they slam Catholics for their “heresy and apostasy”.

It’s the strangest thing to me. Truth is truth no matter who’s name is stamped on the cover.

 

[De_Maria]

Thank you for your clarification. The Lutheran approach is that if I am saved, it is because of the work of the Triune God, and he gets the credit. If I am an apostate, the responsibility is on me and I am held accountable for my sin. We don’t go beyond that understanding because quite frankly scripture doesn’t.

Actually, Scripture does.

Matthew 19:17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matthew 16:24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Mark 16:16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

The danger in taking the step beyond scripture that your explanation provides is that, from our perspective, it collapses distinctions that should not be collapsed and places an emphasis on myself, even tending to view faith as my work, rather than God’s gift given through the Holy Spirit.

God doesn’t make that distinction as strongly as you do.

Philippians 2:12-13 King James Version (KJV)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Apparently, our good works are God’s works which He accomplishes through us. Yet, He credits us for them:

Hebrews 6:10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

This is why we refuse to go that extra step. Luther’s Bondage of the Will I think illustrates that quite nicely. I hope that explains.

Sure. I hope the verses above illustrate why we disagree.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos, Hi!

My basic question is for Protestant soteriology is this: How can a faithful and honest Protestant, and I’m assuming faith and honesty in those who profess their beliefs; hold that justification and sanctification are separate?

In my mind, justification is being held as righteous by God. Sanctification is holiness. To my understanding; justification and sanctification are one and the same. How can one be justified before God without being holy simultaneously?