Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again. let me point out that no one seems to incorporate the only words of Jesus that DIRECTLY relate to the good works argument.
Saith the Lord: Whatever you do to these, the least of My Brethren, you do to ME!
The "faith alone" argument is precisely out of what I call the "pick and choose" school of theology. Find those words and phrases here, there, thither, and yon, and use them to construct whatever belief you want to support, be that slavery, witch hunting, the disrupting of military funerals, war, you name it.
wow, chuckman, speaking of picking & choosing, you're reference is to a Mt 25 passage on a unique judgment of gentiles set after the future 7 year Tribulation, with their treatment of the persecuted Jews in that time (Jesus' brethren) as evidence of (not the reason of) their being saved or not ... even that passage uses language making that clear..."blessed of my Father," "inherit (not earn) the kingdom," "from the foundation of the world"
John Calvin taught that faith necessarily produces good works, from which one can logically conclude that lack of good works implies lack of faith. This view seemed prevalent in Protestantism between 1600 and 1800. But somewhere in the 1800s, the connection between faith and works was broken and Protestants only cared about faith. When and how did this happen? I ask as a non-Christian who is very impressed by the morality of early Protestants and very unimpressed with the morality of modern Protestants.
Well first of all let me state that I am not a Protestant. My faith is not protesting against some organization for it broke off from none.
I believe Calvin is presenting a logical truth because once one comes to salvation which is by faith alone without any works on our part, the results would be a life that produces good works. While salvation is never the results of any works man can do, works is the aftereffect of that salvation in the life of a believer who is in a right relationship with God.
wow, chuckman, speaking of picking & choosing, you're reference is to a Mt 25 passage on a unique judgment of gentiles set after the future 7 year Tribulation, with their treatment of the persecuted Jews in that time (Jesus' brethren) as evidence of (not the reason of) their being saved or not ... even that passage uses language making that clear..."blessed of my Father," "inherit (not earn) the kingdom," "from the foundation of the world"
WOW! So your position is that Jesus did NOT say what He said? But He DID mean what He said elsewhere which passages you choose to embrace?
The greatest commandment?
The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican?
The Beatitudes?
I guess folks like you are happy so long as you can make anything Jesus said mean whatever you want it to mean...... So long as it justifies your own lifestyle. After all, what does it mean to be a Christian, if not that you can believe whatever you want and live however you want and salvation is guaranteed....
Comments on Protestant history would be greatly appreciated.
Historically, “faith alone” has always been a defining, and arguably the defining doctrine of Protestantism. There was no break at the beginning of the 19th century.
Luther was extremely logical—if pedantic and excessively literal. His question was: What specific works can we know with absolutely certainty are necessary (i.e., required) for salvation?
In a Roman Catholic context, “works” were not simply abstract “good works” like helping the poor, but “actions.” These included going to confession, doing penance, saying particular prayers, fasting on particular days, etc.
Luther came to the conclusion that while most people agree that some works are better than others, people cannot agree (and the Bible is vague at best) on which are absolutely necessary. Thus the question itself must be flawed. A just God would never make it impossible to know what is necessary for salvation. If we cannot know for certain which works are necessary, it logically follows that works must be unnecessary.
Luther and Calvin knew that saying works are irrelevant to salvation was extreme and controversial. They softened the doctrine by saying that “good works” were the necessary extension and physical manifestation of faith.
By the way, I know a lot about Christian theology, but I’m not practicing. I’m interested in it from a historical perspective. I’m not saying that one point of view is better than the other—rather pointing out the logical and historical context for a particular doctrine.
Luther and Calvin knew that saying works are irrelevant to salvation was extreme and controversial. They softened the doctrine by saying that “good works” were the necessary extension and physical manifestation of faith.
My impression of Luther is that he cared little for morality. But my impression of Calvin is the opposite, that he cared a lot. I try not to read history books, all of which are grossly biased, but to read original sources instead. In Calvin's case, this is painful since he was a horribly boring writer. Calvin did lay out strict rules in his Geneva Ordinances and he had an entire series of sermons on the Ten Commandments. This doesn't sound to me like a man who thought works are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
Historically, “faith alone” has always been a defining, and arguably the defining doctrine of Protestantism. There was no break at the beginning of the 19th century.
I know that "faith alone" is standard Protestantism, but how this is interpreted can change. Again repeating my understanding of Calvin, he said faith is the means for salvation, but that faith causes works which means that lack of works implies lack of faith. This connection between faith and works is very strong and seems to explain the incredibly high moral standards of Protestants between roughly 1600 and 1800. And it seems clear to me that this changed in the 1800s. Very few Protestants today care about works at all, but virtually all did before 1800.
Historically, “faith alone” has always been a defining, and arguably the defining doctrine of Protestantism. There was no break at the beginning of the 19th century.
Luther was extremely logical—if pedantic and excessively literal. His question was: What specific works can we know with absolutely certainty are necessary (i.e., required) for salvation?
In a Roman Catholic context, “works” were not simply abstract “good works” like helping the poor, but “actions.” These included going to confession, doing penance, saying particular prayers, fasting on particular days, etc.
Luther came to the conclusion that while most people agree that some works are better than others, people cannot agree (and the Bible is vague at best) on which are absolutely necessary. Thus the question itself must be flawed. A just God would never make it impossible to know what is necessary for salvation. If we cannot know for certain which works are necessary, it logically follows that works must be unnecessary.
Luther and Calvin knew that saying works are irrelevant to salvation was extreme and controversial. They softened the doctrine by saying that “good works” were the necessary extension and physical manifestation of faith.
By the way, I know a lot about Christian theology, but I’m not practicing. I’m interested in it from a historical perspective. I’m not saying that one point of view is better than the other—rather pointing out the logical and historical context for a particular doctrine.
John 6:28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus' answer:
John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Notice the question has a plural (works) and Jesus answered in the singular (work). Added to that, Jesus only references one thing ... "believe" (aka faith) ... nothing else.
Frankly, knowing Christian theology then yet not practicing it is foolish, for when you do not do the only work that God requires, it will lead to the only result that Christian theology says will happen:
John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
Comments on Protestant history would be greatly appreciated.
ok then, some people blame the early dispensationalists in this area...I wasn't alive then, so don't really know if it's a fair criticism, that they had that much influence...plus I am a dispensationalist, so really don't want to give the movement a bad rap, but yeah, the earlier ones so it is said apparently caused a lot of people to see such a big distinction between law and grace that they took it the wrong way and ran with it
reply to chuckman who said: "WOW! So your position is that Jesus did NOT say what He said? But He DID mean what He said elsewhere which passages you choose to embrace?"
no chuckman, I only used quotes from that very same passage (Mt 25) that YOU referred to...I am saying Jesus means what He says, but what He says supports salvation that is unearned in any way, that is a gift -- that is why, for ex, language in that passage speaks of inheritance-- because inheritances are not earned, but given; speaks of blessed of my Father (not blessed because of our efforts); and so on...the whole before foundation of the earth alludes to election before we even existed. Again all this is in the passage you brought up to push works-based salvation, not faith alone. And to tie this into the thread topic, early in the 20th century dispensationalists like Lewis Sperry Chafer made a big deal of this age of grace (an understanding needed as corrective to views such as yours), but some took it perhaps too far in diminishing the truth that salvation does necessarily produce works.
ok then, some people blame the early dispensationalists in this area...I wasn't alive then, so don't really know if it's a fair criticism, that they had that much influence...plus I am a dispensationalist, so really don't want to give the movement a bad rap, but yeah, the earlier ones so it is said apparently caused a lot of people to see such a big distinction between law and grace that they took it the wrong way and ran with it
Thank you, this is the kind of thing I was looking for. Can you recommend something to read by an early proponent of dispensationalism so that I can understand its origin? Also, since you are a dispensationalist, what is your view of law/works? Do you think that the Ten Commandments apply to you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
