Replies

Thank you for finally proving our point. Your points 1,2, & 3 are based on works based salvation.

:) How Martin-Luther-esque of you. Sorry... no biscuit.

There's a chasm of difference between "works-based" and "works-are-not-optional". We are justified and saved by faith--but not by faith "ALONE" (i.e. not by what some Evangelicals and other Protestants call "faith apart from works"--those people usually neglect to quote the rest of the verse: "works OF THE LAW"--i.e. the Old Covenant Mitzvot). Works are an essential requirement of our salvation--NOT because of any nonsensical idea of "earning" our salvation (as if we could possibly get God to "owe" us anything on the basis of justice), but because God has freely chosen to make our salvation contingent on having the type of faith which MANIFESTS GOOD WORKS. No good works, no fullness of faith; no fullness of faith, no salvation.

So you agree that it’s faith alone but that true faith produces fruit! Excellent!

No good works, no fullness of faith; no fullness of faith, no salvation.

What "good works" did the thief on the cross preform ?

There's a chasm of difference between "works-based" and "works-are-not-optional". We are justified and saved by faith--but not by faith "ALONE" (i.e. not by what some Evangelicals and other Protestants call "faith apart from works"--those people usually neglect to quote the rest of the verse: "works OF THE LAW"--i.e. the Old Covenant Mitzvot). Works are an essential requirement of our salvation--NOT because of any nonsensical idea of "earning" our salvation (as if we could possibly get God to "owe" us anything on the basis of justice), but because God has freely chosen to make our salvation contingent on having the type of faith which MANIFESTS GOOD WORKS. No good works, no fullness of faith; no fullness of faith, no salvation.

I'm with CB on this. This is amazing. The closest thing to a Catholic stating the Protestant position as I've ever seen on FR. Although I think if we poke at it a bit we will still see some differences. But this really is remarkable.

The anticipated objection is that Protestants/Evangelicals don't believe in justification by faith plus works, but by faith alone, and that is true. But this is one of those semantic problems we've seen so often here. When we say "faith apart from works," or "faith alone," we do not and have never meant that faith occurs by itself, without accompanying works. This is one of the oldest and dustiest straw men we evangelicals are seemingly continuously refuting here at FR. It's so senseless. We don't teach faith comes to the party alone. We teach, just as you said, exactly as you said, that saving faith "manifests good works."

But what I think happens is this word "apart" or "alone" gets applied to the wrong category. True faith produces action. Abraham believed God, and because he believed God, he chose one set of actions over another. But Paul tells us in Romans those actions are not what saved him. It was the faith that made the difference. It is in that sense we say faith is "alone/apart from" works, because the judicial act of God in acquitting us of sin and accounting us as righteous is based on us having genuine faith, not on our performance against any particular set of rules, Mosaic or otherwise. That indeed is why Abraham, who was justified before there ever was a law of Moses, or even a Christian list of rights and wrongs, makes such a good example of the point.

And as RnMomof7 has pointed out, the lack of formal good works did not prevent the salvation of the thief on the cross. But one could argue his faith was already producing good works, because he began his new life of faith by offering to defend the good name of Jesus against the unbelieving taunts of the other thief. We may not think of such things as good works, but whatever flows from the heart as an expression of love for God or love for our neighbor is in fulfillment of the two highest commands God ever gave, and would certainly qualify as good works. But they did not cause the thief's salvation. They were the inevitable byproduct of a heart that God Himself had marvelously changed, even if within only a few hours of his decease.

So to reiterate, the sense in which we say faith and works are separate is NOT in the category of occurrence, or in the category of cause and effect, because we agree that saving faith will both precede and be accompanied by good works. We just don't see them as co-causal to salvation. They are a result of having a changed heart. They are a consequence of having saving faith. Not a co-requirement of salvation, as though faith and works were two independent, parallel sources of God acquitting us of sin and granting us new life through His Spirit. Rather, just as you appear to be saying, true faith is the logical predecessor of truly good "good works."

And really, how else could it be? How good can good works be if they are only done to avoid punishment of the narcissist that lives within each of us? Doesn't that change "good works" from the unselfishness of love to raw self-preservation? I think this was at the heart of the Pharisees' problem understanding the true meaning of God's law. They couldn't grasp the unselfishness of divine (agape) love. So much of their works-doing was ultimately centered on the self, not the other. It was a formal appearance of love, but inwardly hollowed out to an empty shell of self-serving actions. If we could see our own "good deeds" the way God sees them, down to the deepest hidden motivations, I wonder how they would look to us. Sort of like putting an ultraviolet lamp on that rug you thought was so clean, and seeing the stains of truth. Thank God for His grace, without which we would be undone.

But in any event, I am encouraged we have come so close to saying the same thing concerning the relationship between faith and works.

Peace,

SR