This could easily turn into a faith vs works, or more horrifically (to my mind) a catholic-bashing, thread and I pray it doesn’t.
As I tread water in the Bosporus, I am having to question many things. I do not recall [either in the hideously funda-mental church of my teenage years, nor in the “evangelical Anglican” church I first attended when I decided to return to church] passages on the importance of works [such as in James, the “sheep and goats” in Matt 25] being talked about much at all—or if they were, they seemed to be lightly glossed over.
Could some of the “cream of Sydney Anglicanism” here provide me with a few thoughts as to how they view works as forming part of one’s salvation (if they do)?
As I wrote above, I am curious—as I don’t recall much being spoken on it. I’ll probably sit back and chime in with questions where I am confused [as my thoughts are probably too catholic (and I know the general small-c catholic position) and I don’t want a Protestant vs Catholic debate].
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
But I’d also look to Titus 3:3-8, Rom 4, and slightly more removed, as an example from Jos 24:1-21. Joshua calls Israel to live good lives, but does so by reminding them that they have already been saved. It’s in response to what God did for them that they do good things, not the other way around. This seems to be the pattern of exhortation in the OT (although I’m sure Enkidu will pull me up here with my sweeping generalisation ;) - because God brought you out of Egypt and slavery, live a life that acknowledges him as King (paraphrasing :).
Hope that helps. There are lots of others, but that’s where I’d start looking if I had to explain it to someone in 300 words or less .. I’d be interested to see an orthodox take on some of these verses, in so far as you can speak on behalf of orthodoxy :)
it appears you are on your own for autolinking the verses.. you can all use the practice looking up a real bible ;)
I’ll try and look up the verses in my Orthodox NT Study Bible [they haven’t done the OT yet: if you think Anglicanism moves slowly, try Orthodoxy! ;-)] over the weekend and get back to you.
From my readings, I think the Orthodox position would have the “done as a response” mentality as you do, yet differ from your view in that the Orthodox would say there is an emphasis on the necessity of works as a result of coming to faith. While Martin Luther may have cried, “Sola fides!”, I believe the Orthodox would have trouble with “sola” part of that: they’d say one is saved by faith in Christ Jesus (and one cannot save oneself), but:
The Orthodox Church does not believe in justification by faith alone, but in justification by faith, which produces good works through love.
From here I get the impression of the “essentiality” [is there such a word?] of works:
Orthodox Christianity teaches that belief in Jesus must be combined with putting that belief into action—feeding the hungry, ministering to others, etc. Both essential.
We read in the epistles: “Faith without works is dead.”
One can indeed “believe” in Christ and yet lead a life that betrays that belief. Hence belief alone is not sufficient. “Not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will have a place in my Kingdom.”
I assume there’d be a disagreement here? Is all that is necessary, from your point of view, is to have faith? If so, what would you say the quote from Christ above ["Not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will have a place in my Kingdom."] refers to? Sorry—this may be going off the original topic, but I’ve struggled with this verse for quite some time.
Bishop Kallistos Ware in “The Orthodox Church” says a similar thing:
But it must not be imagined that because a man accepts and guards God’s grace, he thereby earns ‘merit.’ God’s gifts are always free gifts, and man can never have any claims upon his Maker. But man, while he cannot ‘merit’ salvation, must certainly work for it, since “faith without works is dead”
(my italics)
In terms of James ["faith without works is dead"] and “The Sheep & Goats” [Matt 25], what part do they play in evangelical theology? Is it a request to do good as a response to salvation, or is there some form of “requirement” to do it? [I realise there may be many views within the “evangelical” churches; so perhaps there is no “one” answer.]
Not sure if theres a bit of an unintentional straw man going on in your argument.
The gospel is about accepting Jesus as King and Jesus as Lord. So we are justified by grace alone, yet coming under the Lordship of Christ is going to have massive implications on how we live our lives.
[quote author="Adam Gregory"]Not sure if theres a bit of an unintentional straw man going on in your argument.
I do agree with this [except I may remove the “alone” ;-) ]:
[quote author="Adam Gregory"]The gospel is about accepting Jesus as King and Jesus as Lord. So we are justified by grace alone, yet coming under the Lordship of Christ is going to have massive implications on how we live our lives.
I started this topic merely to find out an “evangelical” view of “works”, as as I currently undertake the challenging task of working out what exactly it is I believe, I realised I’d never really understood the “evangelical” position. I’ve always had difficultly with the Bible verses I referenced in my latest post, and I was looking for some suggestions as to how others interpreted them. But perhaps your answer is all there is to know, and thus the thread can be closed.
Ian, you said on another thread you are thick skinned. I hope you still are! I didn’t mean to be offensive to you, and apologise if i was.
What I meant was, I don’t see any contradiction whatsoever between “faith alone” and “faith without works is dead”. Essentially, they’re talking about different things.
In terms of James ["faith without works is dead"] and “The Sheep & Goats” [Matt 25], what part do they play in evangelical theology? Is it a request to do good as a response to salvation, or is there some form of “requirement” to do it? [I realise there may be many views within the “evangelical” churches; so perhaps there is no “one” answer.]
Yup, I see where you are coming from, but the 2nd half of the Ephesians quote carries part of that. “created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. “. So we are created in Christ Jesus to do good works.. our purpose is to do good works. We are created to do so. So I think that good works are essential for living as a Christian.
But those works don’t qualify us to be a christian. The works were ”prepared in advance for us to do”, indeed, even the very faith we have in Christ, is a gift from God. We can’t even claim our faith as a work.. It’s given to us before we become Christians - indeed to allow us to become Christians.
Romans 5:5-9 expands on this a bit. We get saved while we are god’s enemies. So we get saved not because of our works, but in spite of our works, which are a steaming mound of elephant dung (Phillipians 3:8-11). Contributing works to our salvation takes the gift and makes it an obligation.. after all I earned this spot in heaven (Romans 4:4).
For a human, breathing is something we do because we are human, and it’s a part of our build up. But breathing doesn’t make us human. Lots of things breathe. As a Christian, I am a new creation, and I do good works (those appointed for me to do) in response to the fact that Jesus saved me.. not to earn it. That’s where the “faith without works” fits in. It doesn’t make us Christian, but it is as integral to our nature as a newly created being as breathing is to a human.
I just went to check the 2nd verse you gace (Matt 25), but I can’t find the piece you are talking about. My bible doesn’t have the terribly helpful headings, but did you mean Matt 7? Or something else. Sorry, I just don’t want to assume you mean somethign when you don’t.
[quote author="Rowen Atkinson"]I just went to check the 2nd verse you gace (Matt 25), but I can’t find the piece you are talking about. My bible doesn’t have the terribly helpful headings, but did you mean Matt 7? Or something else. Sorry, I just don’t want to assume you mean somethign when you don’t.
gah. found it. opening of the eyes helps. how very 2 Cor 3 :)
Ian,
I have a quote from Calvin floating around in my mind, which I shall try to spit out now, but it may be slightly misquoted, someone will check for me, I’m sure.
“Whilst it is true to say that a person is justified by faith alone, it is also true to say that faith is never alone.”
Using the “merit” argument, which flowed from the Roman Catholic system of earning merits through good deeds & purchasing indulgences, the reformers said that the death of Christ was merit enough for us who believe that he did it for us. For we do not need to add any merit in order to impress him to accept us.
Some have said that the apostle Paul was talking about by faith as similar to finding the gate in the fence to come in, wheras James was talking about those going up the path (so that faith without works is dead, & the person is simply deluding themselves.)
The passage you quoted Matthew 7:21 is a very interesting (& some would say a bit scary) passage. Jesus has just chatted about wolves in sheep’s clothing, & the way to identify them is by their actions. You will know them by their fruits. God knows immediately who they are, but we can be deceived, so their actions tell us more of where their heart is at (if that is good English). & then he says “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. On that day, many will say to me “Lord, Lord didn’t we prophesy in your name, & cats out demons in your name, & do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I’ll declare to them, I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”
Who are the people he says in this passage he will reject? Aren’t they the ones we’d be impressed by? They’re not the average bloke who says “Yeah I believe, so I can do anything I like.” They’re the leaders, the dynamic ones, the powerful “Christians” who are very impressive… to us, but not to God. He’s not fooled.
So where does this leave us? We’re saved by trusting in Jesus. Because of his gravcious gift, we respond in love to do the good works he has prepared for us to do, as we follow Jesus. But, there will be other fish in the net & weeds in the wheat (to mix my parables even more) who need to be picked out. Who by? Well if their fruit is obvious to us, then we have a Christian loving duty to encourage them to repent & believe. If they don’t then after due process (like in Matthew 18) we treat them like tax collectors (even if they are high profile church leaders). But even if we don’t identify them, God is not fooled, he knows.
Is this helpful? or are there other concerns that you want explained a bit more?
Liked reading everyones comments so far. I suspect my view is close to Rowen.
[quote author="1 Timothy 6:17-19"]As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
We are indeed called to do good works. However, does anyone think that God treats them any differently because of their good works? If I go to church twice each week rather than once, is God going to treat me any differently in my life? Then add to that any other good work, will God change in his attitude to me?
[quote author="Ian Holder"]This could easily turn into a faith vs works, or more horrifically (to my mind) a catholic-bashing, thread and I pray it doesn’t.
As I tread water in the Bosporus, I am having to question many things. I do not recall [either in the hideously funda-mental church of my teenage years, nor in the “evangelical Anglican” church I first attended when I decided to return to church] passages on the importance of works [such as in James, the “sheep and goats” in Matt 25] being talked about much at all—or if they were, they seemed to be lightly glossed over.
Could some of the “cream of Sydney Anglicanism” here provide me with a few thoughts as to how they view works as forming part of one’s salvation (if they do)?
I don’t think any of the cream have directly addressed Matt 25 with you yet so perhaps you’d allow the stuff left at the bottom of the carton to have a go:
As I understand it, the passage in Matt 25:31-46 is a direct pick up on Isaiah 58, in particular
Isaiah 58:6 “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? 8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. 9 Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you take away the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10 if you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.
The issue in Is 58 is false religion, the people act religious but they’re just going through the motions. It’s all external.
This is exactly the same issue as is being addressed in Matt 25. First the parable of the virgins shows us those that are “dressed up” but not really interested in the main point of the occassion. Then the talents shows much the same issue - servants who aren’t committed to the job.
On the back of this Jesus uses the language of Isaiah 58, that religion is worthless if it is on the outside.
He’s not saying that works save, He’s saying that a declaration of faith is meaningless if the life is not changed.
Adam: no offence taken at all—I was merely asking. I must improve on my question tone! ;-)
Rowen: sorry for not referencing the verses directly: I was too lazy to look up exactly where they were. :slaps wrist:
Everyone...thanks for all of the responses. I need to rush off to dinner, but I’ll have a good read over the weekend or early next week. Thanks for taking the time out to respond in such detail.
Mid Year Conference (which is a week conference of uni students studying God’s word) ran by Campus Bible Study just ended today for the students at UNSW.
I just dropped in really quickly - erm I need to sleep, but I read the first post and thought I’d tell you that we looked at the book of James during the week!
An interesting view of Matt 25. I’ve always looked at the passage as not being about false religion. I’ve been pondering on that a bit more.
The whole section begins in Matthew 24, and flows through to the end of chapter 25.
Look at the flow:
24:1-2 Disciples told that temple will be destroyed.
24:3-8 They ask When? & What sign? Jesus warns them to persevere & be faithful
24:9-14 Jesus tells of opposition, & gospel success
24:15-20 Jesus tells of temple destruction, giving the when & the signs
24:21-28 Jesus then warns again of the need to persevere & be faithful.
24:29-31 Jesus then blends it into end of time discussion (if he hadn’t been already???)
24:32-35 Jesus talks about the signs of the coming of the end.
24:36-44 Jesus then says that even though the signs are there, the time is unknown & will surprise many, so we must be ready.
24:45-51 Jesus warns Christian leaders not to abuse because they perceive the delay.
25:1-13 Jesus tells another parable to emphasise the need to be alert & ready or else we’ll miss out
25:14-30 Jesus tells another parable about responsible use of our time & gifts while we wait, for a time of accounting is coming.
25:31-46 Jesus tells another parable about what is expected of Christians as they wait and persevere, so that using our gifts is not simply a selfish materialistic use, but caring, sharing with the family of the king.
It is possible to draw on each section & find meaning in them. But as we look at the 2 chapters together, we get a more focused flow of teaching, which points us away from asking is this works-based judgement, to looking at the responsibility on the leaders, and each individual Christian, as we persevere and wait.
Otherwise, we’ll start asking questions such as what is the oil that we have to have so that we can be ready? & Why did Jesus say stay awake, when all 10 of them fell asleep anyway, & 5 of them still got in! We know the answer is that it flows from the end of chapter 24, where the general injunction is for us to be alert (& not alarmed?) for the coming of our Lord. & what the oil is may in part be answered by the caring use of what God has given us.
It is important to remember that the King in the parable made the judgement on how they treated his family, not on how they treated anyone or everyone. It was the understanding he brought that as they did it to one of the royal family, then they were doing it for him. Our implication then flows that we need especially to care for our heavenly King’s royal family (ie other Christians).
Davidould, I suppose in a very real way it chats about false religion in the sense of people simply going thru the motions, & not persevering to the end. Yet the context is being ready for Jesus to come back.
Could some of the “cream of Sydney Anglicanism” here provide me with a few thoughts as to how they view works as forming part of one’s salvation (if they do)?
I don’t know if you though I would respond as a part of the “cream …”, but there is absolutely no way I am able to determine if I am a part of the “cream …”,
[quote author="Jason Poulos"]Umm, Rowen, if I recall correctly, you made your choice to be Margaret instead of David on an earlier thread. Sorry buddy, it may seem heartless, but no you cannot be the cheese. But from reading some of your posts, I would think you’ve moved from Biblical milk to solid food.
I can be Margaret and Cheese at the same time.
And, umm, I hate to be hyper literal and all, but many cheeses are solid. Unless it’s runny camembert.. I like it runny
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
