S
- Status
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Glad to make you smile, ML.
Regarding what you said, i can see how faith and repentance are like two sides of the same coin. If
faith = trust
and
repentance = changing one’s mindthen one cannot truly put his trust in Christ to save him from his sin if he does not want to be saved from it. Letting go of sin is a requirement for embracing Him. I like to think of my own experience as making a U-turn in the road of my life.
It appears, however, that you are saying faith and repentance and good deeds are like three sides of the same pyramid. I can think of one example where this was not the case, namely, the condemned criminal on the cross who died beside Jesus.
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”(Luke 23:39-43)
This man admits that he is not good (repentance) and asks Jesus to remember him when he returns to earth (trust). He is nailed on a cross. He could do no good before he died. Yet, Jesus tells him he would be with him in Paradise (which, i understand, is heaven). It seems for this man that God’s undeserved love (grace), together with the man’s repentance and faith, was enough to get him into heaven.
Please understand i am not saying good acts are not a requirement for living the Christian life. I’m asking whether good acts are a reason, and not merely a result, of a person whose life is changed forever by the realization of the awesome reality of Jesus’ love for him personally.
J
Janet_S
Guest
But what if the thief had not died that day. What if he climbed down from the cross and returned to his former way of life. Is he guaranteed salvation because at one time in his life he truly and sincerely repented and trusted?Glad to make you smile, ML.
Regarding what you said, i can see how faith and repentance are like two sides of the same coin. If
faith = trust
and
repentance = changing one’s mindthen one cannot truly put his trust in Christ to save him from his sin if he does not want to be saved from it. Letting go of sin is a requirement for embracing Him. I like to think of my own experience as making a U-turn in the road of my life.
It appears, however, that you are saying faith and repentance and good deeds are like three sides of the same pyramid. I can think of one example where this was not the case, namely, the condemned criminal on the cross who died beside Jesus.
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”(Luke 23:39-43)
This man admits that he is not good (repentance) and asks Jesus to remember him when he returns to earth (trust). He is nailed on a cross. He could do no good before he died. Yet, Jesus tells him he would be with him in Paradise (which, i understand, is heaven). It seems for this man that God’s undeserved love (grace), together with the man’s repentance and faith, was enough to get him into heaven.
Please understand i am not saying good acts are not a requirement for living the Christian life. I’m asking whether good acts are a reason, and not merely a result, of a person whose life is changed forever by the realization of the awesome reality of Jesus’ love for him personally.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thanks for trying to stoop down to my level to communicate in a way i can understand, Rachel (beautiful name, that). If i had a daughter, i’m sure i would have named her Rachel.g + r + f = s + w
Doesn’t fly because the Bible tells us that f - w = dead faith
therefore take the works away from both sides (assuming that works are not necessary for salvation, just a bonus effect)
g + r + (f-w) = s + w - w
g + r + dead faith = salvation without works
is to me obviously not right
Unless you do believe that dead faith can achieve a salvation without works, which is the Protestant position.
A protestant might defend it like this:
It is possible to believe sincerely in Jesus, receive his salvation, and be justified by His merits with no further fruit.
I believe the Catholic model might be better represented as such.
g+r f + w = s
Except I would change the equal signs to deltas, to show change rather than immediate equality.
Which is to say that the Catholic model is rather more like following Jesus in discipleship - through God’s grace and my repentance, I follow Jesus by my faith and obedience, which bears the natural fruit of salvation from sin and death.
I agree with you (and St. James) that faith without good works is dead.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
(James 2:20)
Please try to understand that this is not what i’m suggesting.
grace + repentance + faith = salvation + works
This *is *faith with works (it’s just that the good deeds come after salvation, not before). In contrast, faith without works would be this:
g + r + f = s
I actually believed this at one time, to my own shame. Thank God i was delivered from the deception that it was OK to live like the devil and call myself a child of God. Do you think that James was saying that if you don’t have the evidence of a changed life, you likely have a said faith and not a genuine one? St. Paul wrote:
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
(2 Corinthians 5:17-20)
Anyone who is a true follower of Christ will show it by a changed life. She might not be sinless, but she will, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance and power, sin less and less.
You see, many Protestants make a distinction between salvation and sanctification. Sanctification is not a requirement for salvation, they believe, but it is a requirement to live the Christian life. Protestants don’t put their trust in the good things God does in them to get them to heaven. They see heaven as a free gift from God and do what is good out of being overwhelmed by the love of God expressed in that gift and the gift of his one and only Son.
Do you think this is a wrong view to have?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, Heisenburg, i would agree that faith minus good works does not equal salvation, for reasons i mentioned in my reply to Rachel. Again, i am not advocating not doing what is right. Rather, i’m asking if it is right to trust in those good things i do as a cause of salvation. Protestants caution me that this is putting my trust in the wrong gospel.
The other day i stood on a chair to put some shirts on the top shelf of my bedroom closet. I had faith that chair would hold me up. It had a crack in one of the legs, however, and it collapsed under my weight. My faith was only as good as the object in which it was placed. Since the chair could not hold me up, my faith, although sincere, was sincerely wrong.
Before i put my faith in the good things i do to get me to heaven, i want to be sure that my faith will not be in the wrong object. Is it what Christ did for me that gets me there, or is it what Christ does through me? Do you think this is an important distinction to make and an important question to ask?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
How could someone, after realizing the depth of his own depravity and the undeserved depth of God’s love ever turn his back on the Father?
I might be prepared to die for someone who does not deserve such a sacrifice from me, but think of the Father. I could never allow one of my sons to suffer and die for someone who did not deserve it. Yet, this is exactly what the Father did for you and me, Janet. Would you ever do the same for someone else? No. How could you? That kind of love is unreasonable, if not, well, insane. The Father is crazy in love with you and me. Knowing this to be true, how could you or i ever do anything but want to return his love by loving him and others?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
I suppose we would have to be more crazy than He to walk away from Him. Would you agree, Janet?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
H2O:
Do you think there is a difference from being saved from the penalty of sin and being saved from the power of sin? Do you think St. Paul is speaking of sanctification in the passage you mention?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
VM:This is an interesting way of visualizing the question, and I think it points out the inconsistency of the first position (not that that was your intention, I’m sure
The inconsistency is in the fact that you’ve got the human supplying ‘r’ and ‘f’, but you’re just determined that the human doesn’t supply ‘w’. There are, IMO, the only two consistent salvation theologies, using your nomenclature:
g = r + f + w + s (Calvinism?)
or
g + r + f + w = s (All pre-Reformation Christianity)
But
g + r + f = w + s is no more consistent than
g + f + w = r + s
or
g + r + w = f + s or any other combination. It involves an arbitrary division as to what is required from humans to receive the gift of salvation, and what is produced from that gift. I just don’t understand the obsession (and I do mean obsession) with the ‘w’ part of the equation. Protestants don’t obsess over the** ‘r’ **or the ‘f’, but boy do they go on about the ‘w’! Makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Do you think it possible that a person can receive a gift without doing anything to earn it?
What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 6:21-23)
If a person was required to do something to earn it, would it still be a gift, or would it be a reward?
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Romans 4:4-5)
Please understand that i’m here to put what i have believed to be the truth to the test. I want to hear what those who do not agree with me believe, and more importantly, why they believe it. I don’t want to say, as so many i know say, they’re Catholic, so of course they are wrong! I’m here to see if you are all right.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
This idea is new to me, Tom. Will you explain it further?
It seems to me that if the good things i do are not a cause (or reason) for why God saves me from hell, then i should not trust in them to get me there. If the good things i do are not a consequence (or a result of receiving the gift of eternal life and the Holy Spirit, then what does cause me to want to obey God?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, Lava, i agree with all four of these. Do you think that number 4 is speaking about the degrees of reward in heaven? Do you think it possible that there be degrees of reward in heaven and yet heaven itself is still a gift?
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
(1 Corinthians 3:10-15)
What do you think St. Paul is describing in this passage?
V
VociMike
Guest
Of course. And that person can reject the gift. A gift that one is forced to accept and to keep is no gift at all. Once we accept God’s offer of salvation, our entire life becomes our continuing acceptance of that gift.
Would you categorize having faith and repenting as “doing something to earn it”? If not, why not? Why is salvation not considered a reward for having faith, but it is considered a reward for good works?
Again I get back to my position that only Calvinism (we do nothing, God does everything) and traditional (Catholic & Orthodox) Christianity (God initiates all, but our life-long free-will response is critical in accepting the gifts) are consistent theologies. To hold an in-between position, that our having faith is critical to our salvation, but our doing works is not, is inconsistent. It is neither fish nor fowl, but an artificial division of a person’s entire salvation story.
J
Janet_S
Guest
According to Hebrews 12:14, holiness (sanctification) is necessary:
"****Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
J
Janet_S
Guest
Yes, it is hard to believe someone would turn his/her back on the God that loves us, yet people do all the time. I have heard Protestants call it “backsliding.” Hebrews 6:4-6 says “For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.”
Also notice John 3:16–“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” Believes is in the present tense. You can’t rely on one snapshot moment in your life where you repented and put your trust in Jesus. It is a free will choice every day to follow Christ.
God never takes our free will from us. We always remain free to love and serve Him or to reject Him. The choice is ours, every day.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, i can see that.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
VM:
I’m understanding repentance to mean changing one’s mind. I’m understanding faith to mean putting one’s trust in who Jesus is and what he did. A paralyzed man who cannot move or talk but how is still in his right mind can repent and put faith in Christ. What he cannot do are good works.
A man who is drowning and does not know how to swim can give up on the idea of trying to swim and grab hold of a life preserver thrown to him. Like St. Peter, who found he could not walk on water and started to sink, one can call out, “Lord, save me!”
However, if you believe eternal life is a reward, and not a gift, then why does St. Paul call it a gift? Isn’t a gift, by definition, not a reward?
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 6:23)
Regarding salvation being a reward for good works, i did not say that it was. Do you believe it is? If so, please tell me why.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Janet:
Are you holy? Can anyone be perfect? Did not Jesus say that “No one is good but God alone”? Yes, in Luke 18 he did, as did St. Paul in Romans 3:12.
So, then, how can anyone obey the words of the writer of Hebrews and “be holy”? (Notice that he does not say become holy, rather he says be (right now) holy.) If you read on, the writer gives you and i a clue as to how you and i might be perfect in God’s eyes:
14Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. … 22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. …The writer says that people can indeed be made perfect. The question is, how? Are they perfect because they live sinless lives, or are they perfect because Jesus lived the perfect life you or i could never live and offers it to us as an absolutely free gift? I do not see any other way i could possibly be (in the present tense) holy and righteous and perfect, do you?
Perhaps this is why St. Paul wrote that even righteousness is a gift, which we can only be given and cannot earn.
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
(Romans 5:17)
V
VociMike
Guest
The point is, these are both responses, freely-made, to God’s grace. Just as are works. Why should Response 1 and Response 2 be necessary for salvation, but not Response 3. Assuming, of course, that all 3 responses are actually possible, which lets out the thief on the cross, but not 99.999% of all Christians (even your paralyzed man can do plenty of good works for the Lord).
I don’t call it a reward, but you seem to think that it must be a reward if works are involved. But let’s get back to basics. If salvation is a gift, but requires faith and repentance, does that turn it into a reward for having faith and repentance, or does it remain a gift? Whatever your answer, apply that answer to works as well. As I said, this is the consistent understanding. What is inconsistent is to put Response 1 and 2 on one side of your equation, and Response 3 on the other side.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Actually, Calvinists use Hebrews 6:4-6 to reason that it is impossible for a person to lose his salvation. However, i’m not certain this is the correct interpretation.
Are you using this passage to reason that it is impossible for anyone who leaves the church to repent and return? Are you saying that once someone walks away from Christ and becomes a lost sheep you should never try to rescue that person? I do not think this interpretation is correct, either.
This passage is one i still do not apprehend. Will you explain it to me?
R
ricko
Guest
Dear heisenburg
Protestant
F = S + W
Seperate out your variables so all you have is S on the right
Result
F-W=S
If you start with F=S+W and you want to solve for S, the correct way is
F=S+W
W W
You divide each side in order to move the W. Whatever you do to one side you must do to the other. Therefore the Ws on the right side will cancel each other out and you are left with F=S
W
Probably best to leave math out of salvation.
Protestant
F = S + W
Seperate out your variables so all you have is S on the right
Result
F-W=S
If you start with F=S+W and you want to solve for S, the correct way is
F=S+W
W W
You divide each side in order to move the W. Whatever you do to one side you must do to the other. Therefore the Ws on the right side will cancel each other out and you are left with F=S
W
Probably best to leave math out of salvation.
- Status