There are a couple of terms that we are possibly familiar with. One is "contradiction" and the other is "paradox". A contradictory statement is a statement that is ... contradictory. A paradox is "a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true." So, is this tension between "not of works" and the demand for good works a genuine contradiction, or is it a paradox?
First, we cannot avoid that Christianity teaches that we are saved apart from works. Any step toward "saved by works" is a step away from Christianity and a step into heresy. On the other hand, what does the Bible have to say about good works? On the command:
Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:16).Okay, so it shouldn't be a question. Good works should accompany Christians. It is commanded ... repeatedly. (Repetition is the biblical method of highlighting, italicizing, or using an exclamation mark.) No doubt at all. So we have what looks like a contradiction because the Bible makes both statements. We are both saved apart from works and required to do good works.
Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works (Titus 2:7).
[I desire] that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works (1 Tim 2:9-10).
And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works (Titus 3:14).
But, how does that work? Is it a contradiction or a paradox? Well, let's see what else we can find.
Paul tells Titus, "The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people" (Titus 3:8). So, here we see that devotion to good works is a matter of 1) excellence and 2) "profitable". It's good for you to be devoted to good works. Of course, we already knew that it glorified God. So there's one thing we can see that is distinct from "salvation by works".
The Bible goes beyond this, though. In the very verse that follows the famous Ephesians 2:8-9 passage we read this: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Did you get that? We are "created in Christ Jesus for good works." That is a primary purpose of our salvation! And, of course, if you think it through, it makes perfect sense. Our purpose is to glorify God. Good works glorify God. So ... well, you can do the math. We see the same thing in Paul's letter to Titus. "... who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14). His purpose in giving Himself and redeeming us was to obtain a possession "zealous for good works". Again, a purpose statement. In fact, James asks, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" (James 2:14). What good is faith without works? None. It's dead faith. So Christ came to provide salvation through faith, and the purpose of that salvation was that we would do good works. Living faith produces good works.
But, then, is it faith or works that saves? No, we're clear on that. Faith saves. Works follow. So how important are those works? Paul says, "12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13). Works, then, are the out-working of our salvation ... and we do those works because God is at work in us giving us both the will and ability to do them.
You see, when you follow it through, you find that it was a paradox, not a contradiction. We are saved by faith apart from works. We are, however, saved for the purpose of good works. These good works are the out-working of our salvation. They are a primary means by which we can glorify God. So when you hear folks say, "You need to work to get to heaven", be sure that they are confused. And when you hear folks say, "Good works don't matter", you can be equally sure that they are confused. Saved apart from works, to be sure, but saved for the purpose of good works. Let's try to keep that straight.
16 comments:
Okay, which way is it, by Grace, by Faith, or by Works, that brings us into eternal salvation?
How about all of the above?
For many non-Catholics, the answer to the question is one of 'Either - Or', but with Catholics, the answer is 'And'. (This is an example of Boolean Logic)
"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by GOD and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."
This is a Joint Declaration on Justification (Salvation) by faith, paragraph 15. This joint declaration was agreed upon by the Catholic and Lutheran Churches in 1999 after 33 years of discussion.
"Even so let your light shine before men, in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in Heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
"Make no mistake: GOD is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.
Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due season we shall reap our harvest if we do not give up." (Galatiansl 6:7-9)
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12)
I know that the Roman Catholic Church likes to go with "And" in this instance, but if it is truly "And", then we no longer have a paradox; we have a genuine contradiction. If we are saved by grace through faith and by works where Paul specifically says "not of works" (in direct contradiction to "saved by works"), then it isn't a question of paradox; it's a genuine contradiction.
It was Luther who affirmed sola fide ... that we are saved by faith alone apart from works, but he also said that, while we are saved by faith apart from works, it was not a faith without works. The primary difference is that in the "AND" function salvation is a product of faith and works, but in the sola fide salvation is a product of faith that results in works.
I'll go with the non-contradiction.
Stan said..
It was Luther who affirmed sola fide..
Dear Stan,
Sola Fides... Saved by faith alone.
The fundamentalist believes he is assured of salvation.
All he has to do is to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and savior and salvation is automatic and irrevocable no matter what he does for the rest of his life.
Oh Yeah? What happened to the ten commandments?
A. Many verses in Scripture attest to salvation by faith alone. Joel 2:32, "...that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Acts 2:21 says the same almost word for word, and likewise for Romans 10:13. "...I live in the faith of the Son of GOD...", is from Galatians 2:20.
Again, these are beautiful words that should be heeded by all.
B. However, elsewhere in Scripture there is quite a different side of the story.
Start with Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven shall enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Very clear that you have to do the will of the Father to gain salvation.
I like 1 Corinthians 10:12, "...let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." That one says you cannot be guaranteed of salvation.
Then James 2:14-26 says over and over, "...Faith too without works is dead...Faith without works is useless...so Faith also without works is dead." Again, words to be heeded by all.
C. So what is the answer to this dilemma? Is this one of those Bible 'conflicts' you keep hearing about? No, not at all.
The answer is very simple. There are two types of salvation, 'objective salvation', and 'subjective salvation'.
The verses in 'A' are examples of objective salvation. Jesus Christ did atone for all of our sins, past, present and future.
He did His part and did it well, but He left the burden upon each one of us to complete the second side of the story by atoning for our own sins, by doing the will of the Father.
We have to keep the commandments. We have to practice 'subjective salvation'. There is no salvation by accepting only part of Scripture as shown in 'A', and by rejecting, or trying to explain away the verses in 'B'.
Yet this what Protestants are doing. Again, we have to combine 'A', and 'B', to have the full truth. A+B=C = TRUTH.
Yes, Michael, I read that on your blog. But ... you didn't provide an answer to the problem. I can only conclude, then, that you're perfectly happy with the contradiction.
Dear Stan,
Private interpretation of Scriptures can be exceedingly harmful to self and others. This has divided Christianity into hundreds if not tens of thousands of segments.
Too many individuals claim their position is right and are unwilling to freely discuss the position taken or to be submissive to moral authorities.
Holding to a personal position, or one of heretical source, places one's eternal soul in jeopardy. Such people often become instruments that lead others to perdition.
"Too many individuals claim their position is right and are unwilling to freely discuss the position taken ..."
It seems too obvious here, Michael, and normally I'd just let it go by, but isn't this exactly what you're doing? I have asked twice how you address the contradiction "not of works, lest any man should boast" when you assure us that salvation is on the basis of faith plus works? You have failed in every single instance to address the question. It was the only question, so it's not like I've piled up a lot of arguments for you to deal with and just missed it.
Now, if by "private interpretation of Scriptures" you mean that I should not read it, take it for what it means, and go with that, I suppose that's one of the primary issues that made "the Protestants", isn't it?
Since my source is the Word of God and that is not heretical, you would do well not to make such an insinuation in your discussions with people with whom you disagree. (Incidentally, using pejorative terms like "fundamentalist" as you did isn't conducive to conversation either, since you clearly don't mean "one who adheres to the fundamentals of Scripture".)
But, listen, Michael, there is a core issue at stake here. I've run into it in the past with others, although in those cases it was slightly different. The problem is with common basis. If someone does not accept the Bible as God's Word (the more common problem I find), then defending the faith from God's Word becomes pointless. In the same vein, if you accept the Church as the primary authority in matters of faith and practice (as is suggested by your use of terms like "private interpretation" and the rest) and I only accept Scripture as my primary authority, then we do not share a common basis and it will become difficult (read "impossible") to come to consensus. As an example, if the Church tells you "Salvation is by works plus faith" and logic says, "That's a contradiction", you are obligated to embrace the contradiction and abide by the Church's interpretation. I'm obligated to embrace the Scriptures and avoid such contradiction. Different basis.
Dear Stan,
Who Has The Authority?
And who does not!
Authority comes from the "Author of Life", Acts 3:15. All authority comes from GOD, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Romans 13:1-2).
Notice that GOD is selective as to just who He gives authority.
The Catholic Church has a form of government called a theocracy and operates as an "Hierarchy".
Like any other form of government, it has to have "authority" to function.
The Church received its authority from its founder, Jesus Christ...
And still you do not address the central question of contradiction.
Protestants agree that Christ is the head. They simply disagree that the Pope is the head or that "the Church" is the head. But, given your certainty that the Church (meaning, in your understanding, the Roman Catholic Church) is the authority, you must agree with my assessment that if the Church affirms a contradiction, you must also. And surely you affirm my assessment that we have two different fundamental structures from which we operate, making anything resembling consensus impossible.
..you must agree with my assessment that if the Church affirms a contradiction..
Dear Stan,
The Second Letter of Peter insists that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and it also observes that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficult passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they do also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their own ruin"
(2 Pt. 3: 16).
Some seek above all to find in the Bible the Christ of their own personal vision and, along with it, the satisfaction of their own spontaneous religious feelings.
Others claim to find there immediate answers to all kinds of questions touching both their own lives and that of the community.
There are, moreover, numerous sects which propose as the only way of interpretation one that has been revealed to them alone.
There is more here, Stan!
From Vatican II:
He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.
He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart" (Lumen Gentium 14).
That's the great thing about being Catholic: not having to play Bible verses off against one another to fit certain theological presuppositions, like many Protestants who quote Romans 3:28 verbatim but would like to ignore James 2:24, or who stress a symbolic application of Christ's Hoc est enim corpus meum while conveniently ignoring the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, or who decry the sacrament of confession as clericalism and superstition whilst not having any satisfactory answers for Christ's commission to forgive or retain sins in John 20.
Continue here, Stan!
Michael, this is just a suggestion, of course, but if you wish to discourse with people with whom you disagree, it might be a good idea to 1) respond to what they say rather than what you think of them and 2) actually respond to what is said.
On the first point, a prime example would be your use of the concept of "the Christ of their own personal vision and, along with it, the satisfaction of their own spontaneous religious feelings." I have neither offered a "personal vision" nor some sort of "spontaneous religious feelings". I have asked only, solely, continually about the logical contradiction. So you continue to accuse me of things I haven't offered, which isn't conducive to a meaningful dialog. An example of the second point would be the fact that you have not yet answered the only question I've asked of you. You've offered a whole lot of arguments, accusations, and pejoratives (most of which don't even apply), but not a single answer to the basic question of the logical contradiction.
Just for your edification, completely apart from any dialog on the topic, it would be to your benefit to understand something about the person with whom you are discussing rather than simply assigning positions to them and to actually respond to the conversation rather than responding around it.
From what you said, then, I conclude that your answer to my question is "Yes, if the Church affirms a contradiction, so do I." Further, you have no answer to the question about how it is not a contradiction except to claim that it's not thanks, I suppose, to Vatican II.
Bottom line here, Michael, I think we've hit the end of this conversation. On six attempts here, five of which were in response to my comments to you, you've failed to address the question and assured me that I'm a heretic and dangerously misled. I don't mind much -- I'm not offended -- but you can surely see that further discussions about how wrong you think I am and how right the Church must be and how it's wrong for me to try to understand my Bible without first submitting to the Pope will certainly be unfruitful. Let's part as noncombatants and call it a day, okay?
Dear Stan,
I will pray for you when I attend Rosary, this Thursday.
Oh Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke your powerful name, the protection of the living and the salvation of the dying.
Purest Mary, let your name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, Blessed Lady, to rescue me whenever I call on you.
In my temptations, in my needs, I will never cease to call on you, ever repeating your sacred name, Mary, Mary.
What a consolation, what sweetness, what confidence fills my soul when I utter your sacred name or even only think of your! I thank the Lord for having given you so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name.
But I will not be content with merely uttering your name. Let my love for your prompt me ever to hail you Mother of Perpetual Help
I was saved, I am saved and I am being saved.Yes, but only GOD knows who they are.
Sad. Sad that you would end with a prayer to a person rather than to God. Sad that you would hold as holy a person when Scripture is abundantly clear that it is God alone who saves and God alone who deserves worship. I will pray for you as well, but that won't be a prayer to Mary.
Dear Stan,
Have I Then Become Your Enemy Because I Tell You the Truth?"
(Galatians 4:16)
"Truth has always bothered people and is never comfortable."
Cardinal Ratzinger, October 9, 2000
"The New Testament is hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New."
Saint Augustine
The Bible is many books, yet it is one book. It is many stories, yet it is one story. It is the story of GOD's Salvation History of man.
Using typology, a very useful tool for Biblical exegesis, so many prefigurements, or symbols, in the Old Testament are found to point to New Testament realities.
Strict rules must be followed, and one is that the Old Testament prefigurement is always inferior to the New Testament reality.
Another rule is that, never does an Old Testament symbol point to another symbol in the New Testament, but always to a much greater reality.
Psalms 127:1 the prefigurement,
"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."
There is only one Church of GOD. All the rest were built by man.
All churches on earth, save one, are negated by this verse. So it would seem that unless you can prove that Jesus Christ founded your church, you have labored in vain.
1Timothy 3:15 the reality,
"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
The house referred to in Psalms 127:1 is explained here. Notice the word used in this verse is 'church' not 'churches'.
Also note that the Bible says it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Non-Catholics appear to ignore this verse, as when I ask them, their answer to me is, "it is the Bible which is the pillar and foundation of truth".
Continue....
Dear Stan,
Is Mary the Mother of GOD?
A. The definition of 'PERSON' is, 'The center of attribution in a rational nature'. For a person the question is 'WHO'. Who is that person?
1. Each person has a body. Messages come to the body through the five senses.
2. Each person has a soul, the principal of life.
3. Each person has a spirit. It has the intellect and free will.
B. The definition of 'NATURE' is, 'That which makes a thing be what it is'. A dog has a dog nature, a fish has a fish nature.
A dog cannot 'meow' because it doesn't have a cat nature. Everything has its own nature. A person possesses a nature. Nature does not possess a person.
I cannot move your arm because my person does not possess your nature. For a nature the question is 'WHAT'. What kind of nature, human, fish, cat, dog?
C. Jesus Christ was (is) a person, as you are a person, and I am a person.
D. Jesus Christ has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. He is unique in being the only person ever born with two distinct natures.
E. He can do everything that GOD can do, and at the same time do everything that a man can do except sin.
F. As GOD, He knew everything. As man, He had to learn everything, as you and I have to do. Luke 2:52
G. His foster father, St Joseph, taught the creator of the universe how to be a carpenter. Mk 6:3
H. It is a mystery as to how these two natures co-existed in His one person. It is known as the 'Hypostatic Union'.
I. Jesus Christ is but one person, with two natures.
J. He is not two persons, each with His own nature.
K. A son receives his nature from his father, male, human etc.
L. Jesus Christ received His nature from His father, a divine nature.
M. Since Jesus Christ is His Fathers Son, He is a divine person. He cannot be a human person also, as that would make Him two persons, each with a nature.
N. A woman gives birth to a 'PERSON' and that person possesses a nature, male, female etc. She does not give birth to a nature.
O. Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, a 'DIVINE PERSON'.
P. Since Mary gave birth to a divine person, that makes her the Mother of GOD.
MORE...
Logically coherent:
1. Mary was Jesus's mother.
2. Jesus was God-incarnate.
Therefore, Mary was the mother of God.
No problem there. Jesus, as Man and God, had a mother, and that was Mary. Okay.
Logically incoherent:
Therefore, Mary should be prayed to, revered as sacred, and viewed as mediatrix and co-redemptrix.
Unlike many Protestants, I can see the logic (I don't agree; I can see) behind praying to saints. What I don't see is any support whatsoever in any of the pages of Holy Scripture for the "Mary worship" of so much of the Roman Catholic Church. No Scripture supports the Assumption of Mary. No Scripture suggests that she mediates the divine graces of her Son.
But, again, since we differ on the basis of matters of faith, and since your basis requires that you agree with whatever the Roman Catholic Church tells you, you will agree with your view ... and I won't. No, not "won't", can't, you see, because it's not in the Bible.
Post a Comment