Why be good?

[I_Leatherman]

Yes, but correlation does not necessarily mean causation, does it? I agree the Holy Spirit causes good works to be done by a true follower of Christ. I’m just asking whether those good works are a cause or a consequence of salvation. I suppose i’m looking at salvation as an event rather than a process. I’m looking at it as a gift i accept rather than a paycheck i earn.

I suppose the simplist thing I can think of is, hypothetically:
if mutual love = salvation [happiness], *is *what is on offer;
why do you love your, [wife].
do you act on your love of your wife, or not,
do you take an intellectual assent - faith alone - attitude,
and woodenly accept her declaration of love,
or do you reciprocate -
or, do you need to reciprocate, even.
What if you don’t reciprocate,
and, how would that affect your happiness [salvation] - [mutual love].

I suppose that happiness is what is on offer, and
I suppose that reciprocation is a requirement for happiness.

 

[VociMike]

Fair enough, VM. Yes, i agree that all of these involve free will. In fact, i believe love is impossible without free will, as one of the early church fathers reasoned. Also, if you want to point out what the Catechism says, i would be willing to consider it, if you will explain it to me. What is your question, please?

The question is, why does your theology not object to some acts of human volition being necessary to receive the gift of salvation, but objects strenuously to other acts of human volition to receive this gift? Why have I never heard a Protestant complain, for example, that the requirement of having faith before one is saved turns salvation from a gift into an earned reward?

BTW, it might help the discussion along if you tell us whether you believe in OSAS. I think you do, but I’ll let you confirm or deny.

 

[mlldrl]

If you are speaking of the rich young man who would not follow Jesus, i think the difference between him and the condemned criminal on the cross next to Christ is this: Repentance. The thief on the cross had it, the rich man did not. The thief on the cross knew he was not good, the rich man did not.

I don’t see how you get repentance out of what I said.

The condemned criminal said of himself:

We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

(Luke 23:41)
In contrast, Luke makes this observation of the rich man:

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”(Luke 10:29)

You have the wrong story. I should have listed the verse. Try Matthew 19:16-, Mark 10:17-, and Luke 18:18-. It wasn’t a parable it was an interaction with a real person.

Again, we’re called to respond to our call. The thief didn’t have any other opportunity…he was dying.

I’m not saying repentance is the only requirement to receive the gift of eternal life. I’m only suggesting that the example you gave shows the necessity for repentance (not good works).

I disagree, but you were thinking of the wrong story so I won’t go in to it.

If there are examples in Scripture that actually do show good works to be a cause of salvation, please point them out to me.

I never said that and I haven’t read a post from a Catholic here that said that either! Are you purposefully twisting my words? If this is your strategy then I’m afraid that I’m finished with this discussion!

M

 

[trogiah]

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?

So many intriguing ideas in this thread… Thought I would start with this one.

The idea that seems new to you is one Jesus hinted at when he said: A tree is known by its fruit."

I think the math was closest to being right when someone wrote

f-w = dead faith.

dead faith would seem to be best represented by 0 (zero) so if

f-w = 0 then all you have to do is add w to each side to get

f = w. Or for the mathematically disinclined : A tree is known by its fruit.

The discussion about the criminals crucified with Jesus makes certain assumptions. One being that the man who admitted wrongdoing and asked Jesus to remember him, must have been a completely sinful man who had never done any good in his life. That assumption is not based on anything in Scripture except that the man is being crucified… but Jesus is being crucified and He is completely good… isn’t it possible that a man who had done some good and maybe some bad had ended up being crucified?

(continued)

Jim

 

[trogiah]

. 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?

Enlightened self-interest.

God does not make commandments to be arbitrary and capricious and to puff himself up with self importance by making people follow His laws.

The ten commandments come with a promise, (well at least 7 out of ten do) Keeping those commandments will result in long life and properity for the people who keep them.

The threat of condemnation is often used as a reason to follow various laws. Jesus assures us that the only thing we must do to receive God’s forgiveness is to practice forgiveness ourselves.

I know this is collection of thoughts is a little disjointed but the thread had been going a while before I dropped by.

Jim

 

[Janet_S]

Janet:

Thank you for your definition of holiness. If you consider Jesus’ words that you quoted carefully, what did he mean?

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Notice that he uses the word be. He does not say, “So become perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” He says, “So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

I’m assuming our beloved Redeemer would never ask anything of us that is impossible for us to do. Please tell me, in your opinion, how can you, personally, be (right now) as perfect as the Father? I’m asking a sincere question.

In response to your post, I don’t understand why you make it a point to distinguish between the words “be” and “become” in the above passage. The word “become” implies a change, but it doesn’t necessarily include a long period of time to effect that change. If someone weren’t perfect 1 second ago and is now perfect at this moment, he has “become” perfect even though the change was instantaneous. Why did you make such an issue of pointing this out? Is it because you object to the Catholic idea of salvation as a process—we were saved, we are being saved, we will be saved?

When you explained in post #60 your interpretation of Matt 5:48, you searched Scriptures and found Hebrews 10:13-17 which is key to your understanding of this passage.

When I interpreted this passage, I didn’t look to the book of Hebrews. Instead, I looked at the context of this passage—who was Jesus addressing and what was His message. Jesus was talking to His disciples. He was teaching about morality. Immediately before this passage He tells His disciples to love their enemies. He told them not to be like the pagans but to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” My interpretation of what Jesus was saying to his disciples in essence is this “Love your enemies. Yes, I realize I am asking a lot of you, but you are children of your Heavenly Father. I expect more out of you than I expect of the pagans. Imitate your Heavenly Father."

I realize you have been taught and you believe that the good things you do are a consequence, but not a cause of salvation. I realize all (or most) of Protestantism is in agreement with you. You say you were taught that this is what the Bible teaches.

However, I believe the only way anyone can come to this conclusion is to ignore most of the Bible. How can anyone read Matthew 25:31-46 and Jesus’ sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) and come to the conclusion that one’s actions have no effect on his/her salvation? Do you think His disciples understood Him to be saying “all you need to do is to repent and to have faith, then you will be saved? You will probably want to be good and holy, but it’s not a requirement.” Did Paul teach a different Gospel than Jesus did? Most Protestants seem to think so.

We see in the writings of the ECF’s that the Church has always called people to a life of holiness. Do you know if any of the ECF’s writings testify to the fact that the Church ever believed in your model of salvation (good things you do are a consequence but not a cause of salvation)? I’ve never heard of any, but if you know of some, let us know. As far as I know, this view of salvation was introduced at the Reformation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So many intriguing ideas in this thread… Thought I would start with this one.

The idea that seems new to you is one Jesus hinted at when he said: A tree is known by its fruit."

I think the math was closest to being right when someone wrote

f-w = dead faith.

dead faith would seem to be best represented by 0 (zero) so if

f-w = 0 then all you have to do is add w to each side to get

f = w. Or for the mathematically disinclined : A tree is known by its fruit.
…

Jim:

Yes this discussion is fascinating, because many who are more wise and intelligent than myself have contributed.

Regarding your mathematical equation, more than one wise person here cautioned me that using arithmetic to prove a metaphysical truth is bad theology. I concurred, and explained that this was not my intention. Hence, i tried to rephrase my statements. Instead of the plus sign, i substituted the word and. In place of the equal sign, i put the words results in.

With this clarification, i think you might find your “equation” actually supports the Protestant view. Please allow me to explain:

**(f) = (w)**means faith results in good worksThis, of course, agrees with the idea i put forth for discussion, namely:

(1) Protestant view of how to obtain salvation(g) and (r) and (f) results in (s) and (w)In contrast (and please correct me if i’m wrong) the Roman Catholic view is not (f) results in (w), rather it is:

(2) Catholic view of how to obtain salvation(g) infused with (r) and (f) and (w)] results in (s)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I suppose the simplist thing I can think of is, hypothetically:
if mutual love = salvation [happiness], *is *what is on offer;
why do you love your, [wife].
do you act on your love of your wife, or not,
do you take an intellectual assent - faith alone - attitude,
and woodenly accept her declaration of love,
or do you reciprocate -
or, do you need to reciprocate, even.
What if you don’t reciprocate,
and, how would that affect your happiness [salvation] - [mutual love].

I suppose that happiness is what is on offer, and
I suppose that reciprocation is a requirement for happiness.

IL:

I find three definitions of faith in my small dictionary:**faith **1. trust, confidence in. 2. religious belief. 3. loyalty.

I am using definition number (1). Your definition of faith as being synonymous with love does not meet the accepted understanding of the English word. However, i would agree with you that genuine trust in Christ results in love.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… BTW, it might help the discussion along if you tell us whether you believe in OSAS. I think you do, but I’ll let you confirm or deny.

VM:

If you have time to read the discussion thread “Has Eternal Life?” you will see that some extremely thoughtful people helped to change my mind about the OSAS idea. I now see how it is possible that the Scripture teaches a person can lose her salvation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The question is, why does your theology not object to some acts of human volition being necessary to receive the gift of salvation, but objects strenuously to other acts of human volition to receive this gift? Why have I never heard a Protestant complain, for example, that the requirement of having faith before one is saved turns salvation from a gift into an earned reward?

BTW, it might help the discussion along if you tell us whether you believe in OSAS. I think you do, but I’ll let you confirm or deny.

VM:

With all the replies i gather you missed mine. I think i have answered this very question several times already, but i will try again.

(r) Repentance = Changing one’s mind**(f) Faith** = Trust**(w) Good works** = Doing something that results in a rewardTo demonstrate how (r) and (f) are different from (w) i will use an example, which i hope will help you understand.

Lets say you have a ditch you want dug in your back yard. You hire me to dig your ditch. At the end of the day, you find me laying in your hammock and the ditch is not completed. In fact, i haven’t even begun to dig. Annoyed, you wake me, and to your surprise i say, “Did you come to pay me? Please do!”“Pay you?” you ask, “Why on earth would i do that?” “Well,” i reply, “I trust that you have sufficient wealth and i know you to be an honest man. Why should i doubt you?”“But you haven’t lifted a finger to do what i hired you to do!” you exclaim.“True,” i say, realizing how i have wronged you. “Please accept my apology. I will sincerely try to never do that again.” “Good,” you say. “Now, will you?” i ask.“Will i what?” you reply."Pay me, of course!"Now, my poor attempt at humor answers your question. Here the lazy worker has faith, for he trust you. He has repentance, for he agrees that he was wrong to sleep the day away when you hired him to dig a ditch. Should you pay him for this? No, of course not! Faith and repentance are not actions that deserve a reward.

What if the lazy man does dig the ditch tomorrow. Will you pay him then? Of course, because doing this good work is deserving a reward.

So, why exactly do good works deserve a reward and faith and repentance do not? The answer is that they are different. How are they different? This question i am asking you to answer, please.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *If there are examples in Scripture that actually do show good works to be a cause of salvation, please point them out to me.*I never said that and I haven’t read a post from a Catholic here that said that either! Are you purposefully twisting my words? If this is your strategy then I’m afraid that I’m finished with this discussion!

ML:

I apologize for misunderstanding you and am not trying to frustrate you or misrepresent your views. Perhaps i’m showing my ignorance of Roman Catholic teaching. It has been a long time since i attended mass.

Based on your reply quoted above, are you saying that the good things a person does for Jesus and others is not one of the reasons why a person makes it into heaven? I thought this was the Roman Catholic view, but perhaps i am mistaken.

 

[VociMike]

S4J, I still don’t see it. I still don’t see how one must have trust to receive a gift, or how one must change one’s mind to receive a gift. Why are you OK that it requires an act of human volition to receive the gift of salvation, but you are not OK that it requires an act of human volition to receive the gift of salvation? Yes, read that again, it’s what I meant to say.

You ask me how faith and repentence are different from good works. I say they are not different. They are all voluntary acts in response to God’s grace. They are exactly the same in the context of salvation.

I’m guessing that this has to do with your believing in OSAS - is that true?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

In response to your post, I don’t understand why you make it a point to distinguish between the words “be” and “become” in the above passage. The word “become” implies a change, but it doesn’t necessarily include a long period of time to effect that change. If someone weren’t perfect 1 second ago and is now perfect at this moment, he has “become” perfect even though the change was instantaneous. …

This is a fascinating viewpoint, Janet, that a person can be perfect. You must understand something about perfection that i do not. I take it you disagree with Socrates, then?

Socrates: Is there or is there not an absolute justice?Simmias: Assuredly there is.Socrates: And an absolute beauty and absolute good?Simmias: Of course.Socrates: But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?Simmias: Certainly not. Socrates: Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? (and i speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and of the essence or true nature of everything). Has the reality of them ever been perceived by you through the bodily organs? or rather, is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of each thing which he considers?Simmias: Certainly.Socrates: And he attains to the purest knowledge of them who goes to each with the mind alone, not introducing or intruding in the act of thought sight or any other sense together with reason, but with the very light of the mind in her own clearness searches into the very truth of each; he who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements which when they infect the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge. Who, if not he, is likely to attain to knowledge of true being?Simmias: What you say has a wonderful truth in it, Socrates.

(From Plato’s Phaedo)
What Socrates was saying in his last words to his disciples was the same as St. John:

No one has ever seen God …(1 John 4:12)God alone is good, or perfect. You and i have never seen or heard anyone perfect. John, however, did:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.(John 1:14)You see, i do not believe that anyone can, even for a moment, be as perfect as God. Otherwise, why would Jesus our God say this?

“No one is good—except God alone.”(Luke 18:19)Everything we do, i believe, is in some way tainted by selfishness. There are some who are less selfish than most, but selfish in some small way, nonetheless. Therefore, Jesus can say in all sincerity that no one is good.

However, let us say that a person can be, in a brief moment, morally perfect and as perfect as God in all her thoughts, words and deeds. This is not the same as being perfect. There is a difference between doing something perfectly (if this is even possible) and being in a state of unchanging moral perfection.

Jesus, i believe, is speaking of being in a state of unchanging moral perfection, for he says:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”(Matthew 5:48)Notice that he does not say, “Do something perfectly when you can,” rather, says he, “Be perfect … as your heavenly Father”.

Are you saying, Janet, that there are moments in your life when you have been as perfect as Jesus?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…You ask me how faith and repentence are different from good works. I say they are not different. They are all voluntary acts in response to God’s grace. They are exactly the same in the context of salvation. …

VM:

Regarding the story that i told, would you say that you should pay me for taking a nap? If so, then why should you? If not, then why not?

 

[VociMike]

VM:

Regarding the story that i told, would you say that you should pay me for taking a nap? If so, then why should you? If not, then why not?

OK, though I don’t see the point. You should not be paid because you have not fulfilled your part of the contract between you.

But acts of love (good works) are not based on contracts.

 

[trogiah]

Jim:

Yes this discussion is fascinating, because many who are more wise and intelligent than myself have contributed.

Regarding your mathematical equation, more than one wise person here cautioned me that using arithmetic to prove a metaphysical truth is bad theology. I concurred, and explained that this was not my intention. Hence, i tried to rephrase my statements. Instead of the plus sign, i substituted the word and. In place of the equal sign, i put the words results in.

With this clarification, i think you might find your “equation” actually supports the Protestant view. Please allow me to explain:

**(f) = (w)**means faith results in good worksThis, of course, agrees with the idea i put forth for discussion, namely:

(1) Protestant view of how to obtain salvation(g) and (r) and (f) results in (s) and (w)In contrast (and please correct me if i’m wrong) the Roman Catholic view is not (f) results in (w), rather it is:

(2) Catholic view of how to obtain salvation(g) infused with (r) and (f) and (w)] results in (s)

I was skimming the posts so I missed the part where you rewrote the rules of mathematics. I was assuming the law of symmetry which states “if f = w then w = f”

Tongue out of cheek (and you are right, mathematical language is not a very satisfying way to express theology) I would refer again to Jesus words which have been partially quoted in this thread:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ "

As I read this again the age old question comes to mind “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” I suggest that we are asking a similar question (logically speaking) when we ask which comes first, faith or works? I don’t really have an answer to either question that would likely satisfy all the tenets of logic but I do have an answer to your original question:

the reason to be “good” - (if we have already put our faith in Jesus and shouldn’t have to be "good’ because we are saved by faith… right?) - is that if we aren’t being “good” then we haven’t put our faith in Jesus. That seems go be the operational definition for faith that Jesus gave to us.

peace

Jim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m the kind of person who likes to ask questions, which is one reason why i chose Socrates as a model. Why am i here? How can i know the Bible is true? Is God there? Does he care? Why should i love and obey him?

The great thing about asking questions is not so much the process as the result. When i question whether what i believe is true, it is uncomfortable, because if what i believe is not true, then i will have to stop believing it and believe what is true instead. It can change my life, and change is not easy, but it is right. As Socrates said during his trial:

*…the unexamined life is not worth living. …*So, i’m examining my life, specifically the beliefs upon which i live my life. I hope some of you will be kind and patient enough to help me do so.

Try this:​

Because “being good” is co-natural to human nature. When the ancients debated what was the supreme good - whether pleasure, wisdom, knowledge, or the like - it was “the good” that they were seeking; they were not seeking “the bad”.

The relation of good to bad is asymmetrical - there can be good without bad, but not bad without good; the bad needs the good so that it can be bad; it is relative to good, not an autonomous value. But good is autonomous; it is also justified by its being good; it does not need to account for itself, unlike evil; because evil is out of place, of its very nature. That is why evil is parasitic on good, but not good on evil. ##

 

[Janet_S]

This is a fascinating viewpoint, Janet, that a person can be perfect. You must understand something about perfection that i do not. I take it you disagree with Socrates, then?

Socrates: Is there or is there not an absolute justice?Simmias: Assuredly there is.Socrates: And an absolute beauty and absolute good?Simmias: Of course.Socrates: But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?Simmias: Certainly not. Socrates: Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? (and i speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and of the essence or true nature of everything). Has the reality of them ever been perceived by you through the bodily organs? or rather, is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of each thing which he considers?Simmias: Certainly.Socrates: And he attains to the purest knowledge of them who goes to each with the mind alone, not introducing or intruding in the act of thought sight or any other sense together with reason, but with the very light of the mind in her own clearness searches into the very truth of each; he who has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements which when they infect the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge. Who, if not he, is likely to attain to knowledge of true being?Simmias: What you say has a wonderful truth in it, Socrates.

(From Plato’s Phaedo)
What Socrates was saying in his last words to his disciples was the same as St. John:

No one has ever seen God …(1 John 4:12)God alone is good, or perfect. You and i have never seen or heard anyone perfect. John, however, did:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.(John 1:14)You see, i do not believe that anyone can, even for a moment, be as perfect as God. Otherwise, why would Jesus our God say this?

“No one is good—except God alone.”(Luke 18:19)Everything we do, i believe, is in some way tainted by selfishness. There are some who are less selfish than most, but selfish in some small way, nonetheless. Therefore, Jesus can say in all sincerity that no one is good.

However, let us say that a person can be, in a brief moment, morally perfect and as perfect as God in all her thoughts, words and deeds. This is not the same as being perfect. There is a difference between doing something perfectly (if this is even possible) and being in a state of unchanging moral perfection.

Jesus, i believe, is speaking of being in a state of unchanging moral perfection, for he says:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”(Matthew 5:48)Notice that he does not say, “Do something perfectly when you can,” rather, says he, “Be perfect … as your heavenly Father”.

Are you saying, Janet, that there are moments in your life when you have been as perfect as Jesus?

Sorry if you misunderstood my point, but let me hold you off at the pass. My point was not in reference to perfection, it was in reference to the difference in using the words “be” and “become.” Why is this so important to you to distinguish the two? This is what I said,

“In response to your post, I don’t understand why you make it a point to distinguish between the words “be” and “become” in the above passage. The word “become” implies a change, but it doesn’t necessarily include a long period of time to effect that change. If someone weren’t perfect 1 second ago and is now perfect at this moment, he has “become” perfect even though the change was instantaneous.”

I used the word “perfect” only because that is the line of Scripture we were talking about. Substitute any other word for “perfect” that you want to.

 

[I_Leatherman]

IL:

I find three definitions of faith in my small dictionary:**faith **1. trust, confidence in. 2. religious belief. 3. loyalty.

I am using definition number (1). Your definition of faith as being synonymous with love does not meet the accepted understanding of the English word. However, i would agree with you that genuine trust in Christ results in love.

So you think, trust = salvation + love
but
faith without works = dead faith = no salvation

 

[Bishopite]

You forgot the words in the middle of those two verses:

Now to anyone who works, their wages are not credited to them as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

Should we judge a book by its bookends, or should we read the entire work, cover to cover, before passing judgement?