faith "vs" works

[countrymouse]

I have had just about enough of this!!!

Those of you who have heard Bill Cosby's routine, "Cosby Himself," may remember these as the nightly words of his wife in response to the children's bickering at bedtime. I'd like to apply her words to the feeling I have often had about the faith/works debate.

It happened again last night in the chat room; someone thought he had the perfect challenge to the doctrine of sola Fide! Just look at what James said -

Jas 2:24-24, (NKJV), 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Now, if you yank that verse up out of its context and force it to stand alone, it does appear to knock the feet out from under sola Fide But that's what you have to do to make it work - wrest it completely from it's context.

I'm not going to quote the rest of James' words here; if you're really interested you'll go look them up yourselves. But if you do, here's what you should notice. James wrote his letter to address several issues, among which was this: Some of the people were attempting to rest on their intellectual assents. That's the kind of useless "faith" (really no faith at all) he was talking about. It's a different faith than Paul was speaking of when he wrote that we are saved by grace through faith. Otherwise, Paul and James would have been contradicting each other, which they simply did not!

Yes good works are necessary as evidence, as the fulfillment of the believer's claim to faith. (There is no excuse for antinomianism.) But those works are not meritorious of salvation (do not earn salvation for the believer). We have been taught to consider ourselves "unprofitable servants."

John Bunyan expressed this far better than I can. I heartily recommend that you read at least the first several paragraphs of this article:

http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=461

Grace and Peace (the peace of Christ),
cm

[Brandan Kraft]

I'm glad to see that someone discovered that little gem by Mr. Bunyan. Just about everything I've read of his is amazing

[countrymouse]

Thanks for including Bunyan's article in the library, Kermie.

And for including this one, by Pink, which is also pertinent to the subject:

http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=451

[Brandan Kraft]

I can't tell you how many Christians I talk to who think one can be saved, and then run out and commit murder, robbery, and so many other crimes. There is a guy at work who thinks a man can "accept" Christ, and then become the next hitler, and still go to heaven. I asked him if he thought hitler was a christian, and I was astounded to hear him say, "probably not, but you never know!"

*Sheesh* - Easy believism is more of a problem than legalism for churches today I'm afraid.

Jer 6:14, (NAS), "They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace."

Ezek 13:10-16, (NAS)
10 "It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, 'Peace!' when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash;
11 so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out.
12 "Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, 'Where is the plaster with which you plastered it? "
13 Therefore, thus says the Lord God, "I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume it in wrath.
14 "So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the Lord.
15 "Thus I will spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I will say to you, 'The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone,
16 along with the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace,' declares the Lord God.

Reisinger wrote on these passages in "When Should a Christian Leave a Church," http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=316

Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel are talking about what we today would call "easy believism." It can only produce a false wall of assurance. They are condemning preachers who do not preach the need for Biblical repentance. Their gospel only tells about the "good things" and the "love of God." These preachers never talk about the punishment of sin and the holy wrath of God against sin. They even go further and label any preacher who teaches "hard things" as being a false prophet. The people who listen to such preachers must be warned in the same manner Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned the people of Israel. People need to be told that their cheap assurance will be destroyed by God's wrath. They, like all sinners, want a religion without pain or sacrifice and a God who is all love and no wrath. Unfortunately, the preacher of "easy believism" gives them exactly what they want.

[disciple]

Originally posted by kermie
*Sheesh* - Easy believism is more of a problem than legalism for churches today I'm afraid.

it is a narrow road to walk between legalism and easy believism but it is a road which we must travel taking great care lest we fall off into either ditch. both pitfalls represent a departure from the biblical gospel.

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by disciple
it is a narrow road to walk between legalism and easy believism but it is a road which we must travel taking great care lest we fall off into either ditch. both pitfalls represent a departure from the biblical gospel.

Amen, it's no easy road, that's for sure!

Lk 13:24, (NAS), Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Hmmm, a reading of Pilgrim's Progress is in order! Mr. Pliable and Mr. Legalist, here I come!

[disciple]

Originally posted by kermie
Hmmm, a reading of Pilgrim's Progress is in order! Mr. Piable and Mr. Legalist, here I come!

i still am yet to read that...i have it but still need to read it...

[countrymouse]

Indeed there are two sides to this fence. Easy believism is a real problem, and no wonder we encounter so many objections to sola Fide, since many twist this doctrine to use it as an excuse for fruitlessness. Paul did not say that we are saved by grace through intellectual assent! The faith of which Paul wrote is a living faith born of God and productive of holiness and good works.

Holiness is not self-righteousness, however, which is the other side of the fence (legalistic I-earned-it ism). Never let us think that in any of our progress as individual believers that we can congratulate ourselves or look down our noses at our brothers and sisters.

http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=449

Grace and Peace,
cm

[Christ_†_Alone]

Hi mouse,

I began reading your post and had to chuckle...

If I had a nickel, for every time someone came into our room pushing a works based walk with Christ...

We'd all be in Aruba for 6 months, my treat.

Part of the reason folks do this, is the result of being under the teaching of someone else, who has been taught themselves, and repeats the teaching, of a works based doctrine. Most of these people that I've been able to talk with, wont see what James is actually saying, for all the tea in China. They already know what the verse says, and nothing you can show them, will change their mind. This is the result of pride, of course - hanging on to one's beliefe, over and above what the Scriptures actually say - pretty common stuff.

The good news is, however, there are some people who are willing to look at the context of what James said, discuss the issue with you, and come to a proper understanding of Scripture. This attitude, these people, are what make running that chat room, such a joy, for me.

Just a few thoughts....

[countrymouse]

Thanks, CA!

Yes, every now and then the miraculous happens! I say "miraculous" because we know what human nature is like; people like to get to a comfortable place in their thinking and stay there. And then some of them feel a need to eliminate all dissenting ideas by going on the offensive.

God is merciful to keep us moving and growing!

(Hmmm... Aruba! sounds nice! )

-cm

[jpd]

Just make sure you don't re-interpret what James is saying to fit into your theology. James seems pretty clear here.

Keep in mind that Jesus also makes it clear that he's looking for good fruit. Any plant that will not eventually bear good fruit will be destroyed by it's owner. Shall I back this up with the Gospel?

[countrymouse]

Hi jpd!

Do read the articles; we're not reinterpreting James to fit a certain theological point of view. In fact, most of the posts in this thread have pointed to the necessity of fruit.

My argument is with folks who want to separate that particular verse from its context and pretend that Paul and James were talking about the same kind of faith, coming to opposite conclusions. Those are people who speak as though they have somehow earned God's favor. Forgive me for being repetitious, but Paul did not write that we are saved by grace through intellectual assent (or lip service, or giving the gospel a mere nod). Nor did James say that we earn salvation with the fruit that is, by necessity, born of real faith. The Bible is overwhelmingly clear that no one deserves to be saved from God's righteous wrath towards sin.

Again, jpd, context is essential. Yes indeed, real faith produces good fruit, just as James wrote. And we are justified by that fruit in the sense that the fruit is evidence (fulfillment) of our faith.

-cm

[jpd]

OK, I read it, but this is not the message that usually comes across.

Do not be to frustrated by those who see James as being contrary to the doctrine of sola-fide. For the father of the Protestant church, Martin Luther also saw it this way and stated that the epistle of James should be removed from the bible.

For years I've heard people say with scorn that those who teach "faith and good works" are not true believers. Once they hear the word "works," they close their ears to the word "faith" and mockingly label it as "works based salvation". They divorce faith and works as if one had nothing to do with the other and spend much energy teaching that works plays no role in salvation. They go to such extremes to make their point that it is no wonder that people conclude that possibly Hitler was saved. After all, what he did plays no part in his salvation, right? I've heard this from numerous preachers as well as many Christians. This is the message that comes across and it encourages complacency.

However you define faith, the message that is usually given is a definition of faith that is contrary to James and a distortion of the Gospel. After all, when Jesus talked about what the judgement would be like in Matthew 25, he doesn't mention people's belief, only what they did or failed to do.

I feel more energy should be spent on encouraging people to glorify God with their actions as well as their words.

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by jpd
OK, I read it, but this is not the message that usually comes across.

jpd, I've heard ludicracies from both sides of the fence.

For years I've heard people say with scorn that those who teach "faith and good works" are not true believers. Once they hear the word "works," they close their ears to the word "faith" and mockingly label it as "works based salvation". They divorce faith and works as if one had nothing to do with the other and spend much energy teaching that works plays no role in salvation. They go to such extremes to make their point that it is no wonder that people conclude that possibly Hitler was saved. After all, what he did plays no part in his salvation, right? I've heard this from numerous preachers as well as many Christians. This is the message that comes across and it encourages complacency.

Unfortunately, this is a result of modern day evangelicalism and MAN-based religion. Quite honestly, most who claim to be Christians in the United States today disgust me. As far as I can tell, most are not truly Christians as their life gives no evidence... there are no works. And you are right, the message that does come across encourages compacency. Countrymouse and I were commenting the other day about a popular radio preacher that sounds so great on the radio, yet teaches that "believers" can live any way they choose. This is not Christianity, but a message from the depths of hell!

However you define faith, the message that is usually given is a definition of faith that is contrary to James and a distortion of the Gospel. After all, when Jesus talked about what the judgement would be like in Matthew 25, he doesn't mention people's belief, only what they did or failed to do.

I feel more energy should be spent on encouraging people to glorify God with their actions as well as their words.

Defintely! Although we need to be careful to avoid straying into legalism. Our works do not justify us, only give us evidence that we are justified.

1 Jn 2:3-6 (NIV), We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

1 Jn 2:15 (NIV), Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

1 Jn 3:7-10 (NIV), Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

1 Jn 5:2 (NIV), This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

1 Jn 5:18 (NIV), We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him.

[disciple]

Originally posted by jpd
I feel more energy should be spent on encouraging people to glorify God with their actions as well as their words.

do you mean in our giving of the gospel or to people who are already believers? i think this is a very important question to the discussion. do we tell an unbeliever who is steeled in rebellion and hates God that they need to glorify God with their actions as well as their words? wouldn't that be preaching salvation by works? or do we tell unbelievers that they must repent and believe the gospel and that the result will be that God will change their hearts and they will then begin to do good works and glorify God in heaven (being very careful to clearly detail when and why the good works happen)?

but it is important that we make clear that the faith (repentance, justification, etc.) is first while the works follow (they are evidential). the only way we are to encourage people to glorify God with their actions is if they have already heard the gospel and responded in repentance and faith. then, and only then, can they glorify God. someone trying to glorify God before faith/repentance would just be offering filthy rags before a holy God.

this discussion is going on right now in another thread (http://www.predestinarian.net/showth...=&threadid=381 look towards the end of the posts). it is interesting in that thread to see how someone who subscribes to salvation/justification by works approaches/understands the issue. there are two issues involved. one are the passages that clearly say that salvation/justification is by faith alone. the other are the passages that admonish believers to abide, to perservere, to continue, to keep in the race, etc. we must not confound these two things as if they both spoke to our justification. because there is something called sanctification (also called salvation when used in the present tense, i.e., being saved). we must be careful not to confound sanctification (present tense salvation) with justification (past tense salvation). they are different critters and our final rescue (future salvation) is not dependent upon our ability to glorify God in our actions, however our lack of glorifiying God in our actions is indicative of our true status (i.e., if we have no good works, no evidence that we are changed then on what basis do we think that we really have believed and been justified...perhaps we believed in vain?).

sorry to ramble, just some things that were rattling around in my brain. hope this helps...

[Bill Ross]

<d>
>>perhaps i misunderstood your meaning of return to obedience. by that do you mean that as just an end of rebellion? if so then we agree. if you mean that repentance means that one has to commit good works first and first demonstrate repentance by bringing forth fruit (in order to merit or gain justification) then i don't agree with you.

<B>
Let's consider the term "die daily." Jesus said this was a condition of being a disciple. If one lives one day, then one must die one day. But if you live for years, that is hundreds of days of cross bearing.

It is enough to repent once. But that repentance leads to a lifetime of obedience. At any point, one may cease picking up one's cross, and not be found ready when the lord comes. That initial repentance will not be enough.

The just shall *live* by faith:

Hebrews 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

And there seems to be a principle in scripture that faith will be, at some point in the believer's life, be put to a test - to test its mettle. This seems to be what James is referring to, and he claims for it justification:

James 1:
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

So, in the trial of one's faith, it is in a sense at least, that one's faithfulness in the fire will justify them. This is just like Abraham's life story, as cited by James.

<d>
>>i've heard one author describe repentance as "putting down your weapons (i.e., surrender)." i think this pretty much sums it up. since without Christ we are enemies and agents of the domain of darkness we must put down our weapons and surrender so that we may become members of the kingdom of His Beloved Son. it is an exchange of loyalties. so if this is what you mean by repentance or as you put it return to obedience then i would agree. the terminology just doesn't work for me though.

<B>
"Putting down one's weapons" is somewhat passive. Your "exchange of loyalties" is a better expression to me, though not as germane to the meaning in my mind.

<d>
>>i think i see what you're saying now and i agree. it was just your usage of obedience made it sound as if you were saying one needed to do acts of obedience (i.e., fruit or works) in order to be justified as if repentance meant that one had to go do good works first for it to be repentance. do you understand my confusion? do you understand what i'm trying to say?

<B>
Yes, but I think scripture broadens the nature of justifying faith and repentance beyond an initial decision. It is a daily affair, a race that lasts a lifetime, and in particular a period of trial.

<d>
>>what i have a problem with in what you're saying is not that faith and repentance (defined as an end of rebellion) is required for justification but that one must forgive, have a life full of good works, etc. in order to gain or merit justification at the end of their life. the way that paul uses the term (cf. ro 3-5, 1 co 6:11, gal 2-3, titus 3:7) is that it (i.e., justification) is a past tense event in the life of a believer and not a future event merited or gained after a life of obedience.

<B>
Paul focuses much on the inceptive aspect in certain places, but the whole counsel of scripture is very clear, including other passages in Paul, that faith is a daily affair. He did not consider himself to have apprehended.

Bill Ross

[disciple]

Originally posted by Bill Ross
Paul focuses much on the inceptive aspect in certain places, but the whole counsel of scripture is very clear, including other passages in Paul, that faith is a daily affair. He did not consider himself to have apprehended.

i assume you are referring to phil 3:12ff. but is this speaking to justification? is there a verse that asserts what you seem to be saying (i.e., that justification is a present continual or future event)?

[Bill Ross]

<d>
>>i assume you are referring to phil 3:12ff. but is this speaking to justification? is there a verse that asserts what you seem to be saying (i.e., that justification is a present continual or future event)?

<B>
How is this not talking about obtaining justification and the resurrection from the dead?:

Phil 2:
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Bill Ross

[disciple]

Originally posted by Bill Ross
How is this not talking about obtaining justification and the resurrection from the dead?

the word nor the concept of justification (being declared not guilty on the basis of faith) do not appear to be here. are you taking attaining unto the resurrection as equivalent to justification?

[Bill Ross]

<d>
>>the word nor the concept of justification (being declared not guilty on the basis of faith) do not appear to be here. are you taking attaining unto the resurrection as equivalent to justification?

<B>
No, I am appealing to the extremely explicit, if not overly explicit, referenct to the justification of faith in verse 9:

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"

Bill Ross