Am I a Christian?

[Tercel]

I just can't believe anything that would venture to say that Christ on the cross was not sufficient. Christ insufficient? That gets my blood flowing!

You'd never say there was anything insufficient or lacking in Christ's afflictions, eh? Nothing any human can do to complete Christ's unfinished and lacking work? That would be a really bad thing to say? Hmm, let's consult our bible's on that one...
"in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Col 1:24)


Hmm, so let's put Paul in the "heretic" basket, shall we? Incidentally, when I search the bible for "finished work of Christ" I get no hits. I'm inclined to think that's because it's a made up human doctrine with no biblical basis.

know that Pelagianism (works based salvation) has been condemned since the 4th century or so.

So, um, you think Pelagianism is works based salvation...
Go and read this now, right now. ...have you read it yet?.
The Pelagian debate was about the need for grace. It was not about faith vs works. All sides of the Pelagian debate believed in the importance of works for salvation. Pelagius taught that humans could do enough good works to be saved without grace. Augustine taught that God's grace made humans do good works and so be saved.

And I know that Polycarp, Origen, and many other first and second century Church fathers claimed that you are saved and justified by FAITH alone and not by works, and I have posted some of those quotes earlier.

My long response to this is on my other computer and I'll post it Sunday. For now I'll simply observe that it appears:
1) You haven't actually read the writings of the Church fathers
2) You haven't actually read any books about the writings of the Church fathers
3) You've found some biased website on the internet that had dug through about twenty thousand pages of early church writings and pulled out a few sentences that out of context look like they're teaching salvation by faith alone.
In other words you don't know anything of the sort. You're just making ignorant assertions. You really shouldn't claim you know things when you have complete zero knowledge.

On the other hand:
1) I have actually read most of the Church fathers, and most of the early ones more than once.
2) I have actually read all the books about the writings of the Church fathers I have been able to get my hands on, which is something in excess of twenty books so far.
This is a subject about which I do know, Sparko, and what I know is that no historian of doctrine agrees with you, and that the early church fathers didn't at all teach salvation by faith alone.

Did the Thief on the cross do any good works before he died?

The typical Jewish view of salvation by works, that was inherited by the early Christians, held that repentance wiped the slate clean. Whenever a person truly, and completely repented, fundamentally changing their intentions and vowing to live their life in a new way, it was believed God would freely forgive them their previous sins and regard them afresh as a new person who had just sincerely dedicated their life to faithful obedience of God's will. Repentance was considered to therefore bring forgiveness of sins - the phrase "repentance and forgiveness" was proverbial in Judaism and occurs several times in the New Testament. Judgment by works seems to always have been understood by the Jews as judgment of the present character state of the person concerned.

Ezekiel 18 and 33 record clearly this standard view:
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? (Ezek 18:21-23)

The early Christians adopted all the standard Jewish views of repentance, forgiveness and final judgment by works. The death-bed repentance of the thief on the cross poses no challenge to that framework.

[Sparko]

I am very confused at your ideology. Earlier in the thread you quoted



You gave me the impression then salvation has nothing to do with good works. Now you say



Doesn’t salvation go along with good work? If it does then it is part of salvation else Jesus would not have said, “Go and do likewise.” I accept Jesus and believed him. Is that sufficient to you?

I never said Christians should not do good work. Good work is a sign that you are a christian. I said that doing good work will not save you. Jesus saves you when you believe in HIM. at that very moment you are saved. Once you are saved, Jesus is your Lord. You will want to obey your Lord, right? You do good work out of gratitude and because he says so. The good works will gain you blessings and rewards on earth and in heaven. But they won't earn your way into heaven. You are already saved because of your faith.

If you are adopted into a family and you are asked to do chores, do the chores earn you your place in that family? Of course not. You are already part of that family and are welcome in your Father's house. You do the chores BECAUSE you are adopted into that family. You don't go around doing chores to get someone to adopt you. You don't expect a father to unadopt you if you fail to do your chores.

if you refuse to do your chores you will miss out on your blessings. you will cause a strain in your relationship with your family, but at NO time are you not part of the family.

now do you understand?

[Woojamon]

You'd never say there was anything insufficient or lacking in Christ's afflictions, eh? Nothing any human can do to complete Christ's unfinished and lacking work? That would be a really bad thing to say? Hmm, let's consult our bible's on that one...
"in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." (Col 1:24)


Hmm, so let's put Paul in the "heretic" basket, shall we? Incidentally, when I search the bible for "finished work of Christ" I get no hits. I'm inclined to think that's because it's a made up human doctrine with no biblical basis.

I think you've misunderstood the verse. It is Paul's body which is lacking in Christ's afflictions and it is Paul's body that he works to fill up with the afflictions of Christ. It's like saying "This cup is lacking in milk." The milk isn't lacking, the cup is lacking: it can hold more milk! Here are some other translations, and I think you will plainly see the distinction being made.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Now I am rejoicing while suffering for you as I complete in my flesh whatever remains of the Messiah's sufferings on behalf of his body, which is the church.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I am happy to suffer for you now. In my body I am completing whatever remains of Christ's sufferings. I am doing this on behalf of his body, the church.

King James Bible
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

American King James Version
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

American Standard Version
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;

Bible in Basic English
Now I have joy in my pain because of you, and in my flesh I undergo whatever is still needed to make the sorrows of Christ complete, for the salvation of his body, the church;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

Darby Bible Translation
Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly;

English Revised Version
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;

Webster's Bible Translation
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Weymouth New Testament
Now I can find joy amid my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my own person whatever is lacking in Christ's afflictions on behalf of His Body, the Church.

World English Bible
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the assembly;

Young's Literal Translation
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,

http://bible.cc/colossians/1-24.htm

Have you heard the phrase "Made perfect in Christ?" Look up those keywords. We are made perfect in Christ and Him alone. The phrase is not "Made perfect in Christ, oh and you'll need something else, too."

[sage]

But they won't earn your way into heaven. You are already saved because of your faith.

Does that ‘saved’ means going to heaven? If it does that there are many that have already expressed their opinions. Many of the quotes from the bible distinctly inferred that it is not by faith alone that we are justified.

You do not need to answer my post as I now prefer reading the arguments. It is very entertaining.

[Sparko]

Does that ‘saved’ means going to heaven? If it does that there are many that have already expressed their opinions. Many of the quotes from the bible distinctly inferred that it is not by faith alone that we are justified.

You do not need to answer my post as I now prefer reading the arguments. It is very entertaining.

why not read the bible instead?

[Woojamon]

The typical Jewish view of salvation by works, that was inherited by the early Christians, held that repentance wiped the slate clean. Whenever a person truly, and completely repented, fundamentally changing their intentions and vowing to live their life in a new way, it was believed God would freely forgive them their previous sins and regard them afresh as a new person who had just sincerely dedicated their life to faithful obedience of God's will. Repentance was considered to therefore bring forgiveness of sins - the phrase "repentance and forgiveness" was proverbial in Judaism and occurs several times in the New Testament. Judgment by works seems to always have been understood by the Jews as judgment of the present character state of the person concerned.

Ezekiel 18 and 33 record clearly this standard view:
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? (Ezek 18:21-23)

The early Christians adopted all the standard Jewish views of repentance, forgiveness and final judgment by works. The death-bed repentance of the thief on the cross poses no challenge to that framework.

So you agree that a man doesn't have to do any good works to be saved? (I wouldn't call repentance a good work. I think we all agree that "works" means that which is done by oneself outside of oneself.)

Many of the quotes from the bible distinctly inferred that it is not by faith alone that we are justified.

Please reference these verses. I would like to debate them with you :-)

[sage]

If you are adopted into a family and you are asked to do chores, do the chores earn you your place in that family? Of course not. You are already part of that family and are welcome in your Father's house. You do the chores BECAUSE you are adopted into that family. You don't go around doing chores to get someone to adopt you. You don't expect a father to unadopt you if you fail to do your chores.

if you refuse to do your chores you will miss out on your blessings. you will cause a strain in your relationship with your family, but at NO time are you not part of the family.

This raise more questions than a solution. If you did not do your chores, and still accepted as part of the family, it contradicts in every aspect of what Jesus thought. Those that did not do their chores are clearly lazy or become hypocrites.

Let’s study the parable again.

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[j] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

“How do you inherit eternal life?” This was answered by the lawyer and Jesus approved it. Then Jesus then asked the value of each action by asking, “Which of these three do you think was neighbor?” After which He told us to the same. Is it not clear from the parable that to enter heaven, there are more than mere beliefs? Remember here, it was never mentioned that you have to accept Christ. So to study the bible alone isn't enough either.

[Sparko]

if you refuse to do your chores you will miss out on your blessings. you will cause a strain in your relationship with your family, but at NO time are you not part of the family.

This raise more questions than a solution. If you did not do your chores, and still accepted as part of the family, it contradicts in every aspect of what Jesus thought. Those that did not do their chores are clearly lazy or become hypocrites.

Let’s study the parable again.

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[j] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

“How do you inherit eternal life?” This was answered by the lawyer and Jesus approved it. Then Jesus then asked the value of each action by asking, “Which of these three do you think was neighbor?” After which He told us to the same. Is it not clear from the parable that to enter heaven, there are more than mere beliefs? Remember here, it was never mentioned that you have to accept Christ. So to study the bible alone isn't enough either.

the lawyer was asking what he could DO to inherit everlasting life and Jesus told him to basically follow the Law perfectly, knowing that he (and nobody) could do that. he was putting him on the spot. and the guy actually lied and said that he did follow all of the law! So jesus told him to sell everything and follow him.

So sage, are you claiming that you must work to earn your salvation? Are you still under the law? If so, then Jesus is no good for you. If you can earn your way into heaven then why did Jesus have to come to earth to die for? Hmmm?

The jews were earning their way to heaven for thousands of years with their laws and sacrifices. Why did Jesus come then? Why not let things continue the way they were?

Stop dancing around and tell me if you believe you need to earn your way to heaven. If you do believe that, then CHANGE your religion to "Christian(other)" because that is not orthodox Christianity by any means.

If that is NOT what you believe then clarify it.

Stop messing around.

[Woojamon]

if you refuse to do your chores you will miss out on your blessings. you will cause a strain in your relationship with your family, but at NO time are you not part of the family.

This raise more questions than a solution. If you did not do your chores, and still accepted as part of the family, it contradicts in every aspect of what Jesus thought. Those that did not do their chores are clearly lazy or become hypocrites.

Let’s study the parable again.

25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[j] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

“How do you inherit eternal life?” This was answered by the lawyer and Jesus approved it. Then Jesus then asked the value of each action by asking, “Which of these three do you think was neighbor?” After which He told us to the same. Is it not clear from the parable that to enter heaven, there are more than mere beliefs? Remember here, it was never mentioned that you have to accept Christ. So to study the bible alone isn't enough either.

You know, I agree. If a man is able to obey the law, then he will be saved. But what man can obey the whole law? If you break one command, you break the whole law. As far as I know, Jesus is the only man to walk the earth that has fulfilled the whole law. You are no exception to the fact the every single person on earth is covered in sin and breaks God's law on a regular basis, intentionally or not. "There is no one righteous, not even one," because no one was able to obey the whole law! Look:

Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Keeping in this thought, Paul says in Romans 3:9-11 What shall we conclude, then? Are we (Gentiles) any better (than Jews)? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written, "There is no one righteous, not even one,"

This is why there was a need for a new righteousness, that is, the righteous through faith in Christ.

Romans 3:21-31
But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. ... Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith, for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the god of Jews only? Is he not the God of gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised by that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Faith in Christ allows us to uphold the law, but we are not bound to it for salvation!

Romans 8: 3-4
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit.

We live by the Spirit! But what does he say about the Jews and their law?

Romans 9:30-33 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it? Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone". As it it written, "See, I lay a stone in Zion that causes men to stumble, and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Therefore, all this considered, Jesus was not lying when he told the man that if he obeyed the law he would live. But we are all lawbreakers. If that man broke the law even once, he is guilty of breaking all of it. Now, if it pleases you, you can try to live by the law all you want, but "The man who does these things will live by them." On the contrary, you can have faith that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sufficient for atonement of your sin and not live in fear of whether or not you have obeyed the law in it's entirety for the entirety of your life. Then, living in accordance with his Spirit, who comes by faith, you will have eternal life.

[Tercel]

So you agree that a man doesn't have to do any good works to be saved? (I wouldn't call repentance a good work. I think we all agree that "works" means that which is done by oneself outside of oneself.)

Repentance was generally classified as a good work in and of itself. It appears in lists of good works alongside love, almsgiving, piety etc. In the form of salvation by works held in Judaism and early Christianity it was one's character that truly mattered, whether a person was good or evil. Works were considered the most direct measure of that, and thus are always said to be the criteria of judgment. It is often made clear though that the judgment really is concerned with people's inner characters as evidenced by the works they did.

When a person hears God's commands to do good, their inner character's good or evil nature will lead them to be for or against God. Therefore a secondary measurement of a person's character can come through considering their commitment to God. Thus, the gospel of John points to a correlation between those who obey/disobey God and those who are good/evil with the former being a result of the latter (John 3:18-21). This is why "faithfulness" (pistis) to God is used occasionally by early writers to speak of salvation, but not nearly as often as talk of good works.

The normal belief seems to have not been that the good works would be measured against the evil works on some giant set of impartial cosmic scales that almost balanced, although such a view occurs occasionally (Testament of Abraham). It was usually believed that God's judgment was personal and intelligent, and considered deeply repentance, forgiveness, grace, etc and made a sensible judgment about the inner nature of a person as attested to by their deeds and as seen by God looking into their hearts. It was never believed that God required perfection or sinlessness. What he required were that human hearts be committed to doing good in love, and obedience to his commands and living up to God's (relatively low) requirements was thought by everyone to be entirely possible. The only writings I am aware of that even question the idea that humans can be good enough to be meet God's standards are the Jewish (or possibly Christian) book of 4 Ezra, which after raising the question explicitly and thoroughly rejects it, and the Systematic Theology of Lactantius which also has the opposition raise the question and then explicitly rejects it (Lactantius cites himself as an example of someone who imitates Christ sufficiently well).

In the most extreme case, a person could sincerely repent, truly changing their inner character, and so die to their old lives and live to God in a new one and receive God's free forgiveness, and then be killed before they could do any good works. Such a person would be justified in the works-based final judgment because their character was right before God. So, yes I agree that it is possible for a person to gain a positive judgement without ever actually doing any action that could be labeled "good" (one might also think of those born entirely mentally retarded or entirely physically incapacitated). But those are the exception, not the rule. The Jews and early Christians made clear that works were expected and that through our works our innermost hearts would be judged on the final day.

[Woojamon]

Repentance was generally classified as a good work in and of itself. It appears in lists of good works alongside love, almsgiving, piety etc. In the form of salvation by works held in Judaism and early Christianity it was one's character that truly mattered, whether a person was good or evil. Works were considered the most direct measure of that, and thus are always said to be the criteria of judgment. It is often made clear though that the judgment really is concerned with people's inner characters as evidenced by the works they did.

When a person hears God's commands to do good, their inner character's good or evil nature will lead them to be for or against God. Therefore a secondary measurement of a person's character can come through considering their commitment to God. Thus, the gospel of John points to a correlation between those who obey/disobey God and those who are good/evil with the former being a result of the latter (John 3:18-21). This is why "faithfulness" (pistis) to God is used occasionally by early writers to speak of salvation, but not nearly as often as talk of good works.

The normal belief seems to have not been that the good works would be measured against the evil works on some giant set of impartial cosmic scales that almost balanced, although such a view occurs occasionally (Testament of Abraham). It was usually believed that God's judgment was personal and intelligent, and considered deeply repentance, forgiveness, grace, etc and made a sensible judgment about the inner nature of a person as attested to by their deeds and as seen by God looking into their hearts. It was never believed that God required perfection or sinlessness. What he required were that human hearts be committed to doing good in love, and obedience to his commands and living up to God's (relatively low) requirements was thought by everyone to be entirely possible. The only writings I am aware of that even question the idea that humans can be good enough to be meet God's standards are the Jewish (or possibly Christian) book of 4 Ezra, which after raising the question explicitly and thoroughly rejects it, and the Systematic Theology of Lactantius which also has the opposition raise the question and then explicitly rejects it (Lactantius cites himself as an example of someone who imitates Christ sufficiently well).

In the most extreme case, a person could sincerely repent, truly changing their inner character, and so die to their old lives and live to God in a new one and receive God's free forgiveness, and then be killed before they could do any good works. Such a person would be justified in the works-based final judgment because their character was right before God. So, yes I agree that it is possible for a person to gain a positive judgement without ever actually doing any action that could be labeled "good" (one might also think of those born entirely mentally retarded or entirely physically incapacitated). But those are the exception, not the rule. The Jews and early Christians made clear that works were expected and that through our works our innermost hearts would be judged on the final day.

Ok ok. If repentance and dying to oneself is considered a good work, then yes I agree. But for the sake of discussion, let us consider the types of good work most people will think about (IMHO), and that is the "I give to charity, etc.." kind of work.

Then... I don't disagree, I'm saying that, yes, our works reveal our innermost heart, but they are merely an indicator of pre-existing good-heartedness (in accordance with repentance and all that), and not a determiner of salvation. God judges the heart of man, and his heart is made known by his works. Therefore, yes, one can look at works as evidence for a "good heart" at judgement, but a good heart (and thus salvation in keeping with faith and repentance) can still exist without the evidence of works, as in the extreme cases mentioned.

Like you said, though, this is not the rule, and I agree. If a person is a new creation in Christ, then the fruit of the Spirit should follow. If any branch does not bear fruit, then it will be cut off. So yes, I agree that works are a necessary part of the life of faith in that they are the proof of newness of life and walking by the Spirit, but they are not required to become a new creation in Christ.

What do you think?

[Woojamon]

Whoa. I think one of my previously held beliefs is being challenged just now by a question that just arose in my mind! I've never really thought about this before so this is new territory for me, but I think I already have the answer, too. Let me ask you the question here in this thread since it is somewhat relevant to the topic. I may make a new thread in the christian theology forum later.
The question is this: When do we have salvation? Or, when are we saved? By "when" I do not mean "the conditions" of salvation, as in "how", but in the temporal meaning of the actual word. At what time in our life is our salvation secure?
I will see what you say, then I will tell you what I think and make a new thread for other people to chime in.

[Tercel]

let us consider the types of good work most people will think about (IMHO), and that is the "I give to charity, etc.." kind of work.

Hmmm. I've found that when I talk about final judgment by works or works-based salvation, different people have a widely different variety of ideas come into their heads. It seems that the word "works" means very different things to very different people... it's a bit of a slippery term like "legalism", "grace", "law" and "faith".

Some people have the idea that "works based salvation" means that God has a fixed number (say 100) in his head, and anyone who manages to achieve that number of acts of charity gets to heaven. Others see the idea as being a set of scales where our good deeds have to outweigh our bad ones. Some people think that every single second of our lives will either be on one side of those scales or the other, while others think that only really important decisions and deeds (of the once a month, once a year, or once a decade variety) will be on them. Some people equate works-based salvation with the idea of "earning" or "meriting" salvation and making God "owe" us heaven. While others consider heaven as a gift worth far more than we could ever merit that God has graciously and freely chosen to give to anyone whom he chooses and the people he chooses are those who do good. In some people's mind, works based salvation must be entirely mathematical, impartial and merciless and think that if any concepts of mercy, grace, repentance or forgiveness are included at all then it no longer counts as "works based". Others see no problem with those things co-existing in a works-based judgment. Some see the words works-based judgment as indicating a judgment that considers solely the works done quite apart from any motivations, intentions or character that accompanied them. Others see such a judgment as focusing primarily on the inner nature of a person, on their character as demonstrated by their deeds rather than the deeds in and of themselves. And so on...

I find it quite fascinating how different people today that I talk to have all these different views and preconceptions of what a works-based judgment would be or entail. It's really quite interesting too, that looking at the ancient Jewish and early Christian texts, virtually all the above views and many more make a showing at times. Some views are certainly more common than others, and so it is possible to speak of a "standard" view, but there is certainly diversity on a huge number of minor issues and aspects of thought.

I'm saying that, yes, our works reveal our innermost heart, but they are merely an indicator of pre-existing good-heartedness

Sure, to an extent. Although, thinking about it, don't the deeds that you do influence your character also? There is surely a feedback effect, and in a similar way to how habits form, the fact that you do something repeatedly predisposes you to doing it more in the future. The very act of making a crucial decision or performing a crucial act can seriously affect your internal character, making a commitment to a particular mindset. I think it's that cyclical feedback loop that validates speaking a judgment by deeds when one really means a judgment by inner-character.

a good heart (and thus salvation in keeping with faith and repentance) can still exist without the evidence of works, as in the extreme cases mentioned.

I am uncertain what you mean by "faith" here. If you are using it in the ancient Jewish and Christian sense of "faithfulness" toward God and "obedience" to his will and "commitment" to loving others, then I agree. If you are using it in a modern Protestant sense of belief, trust and acceptance of Christ as your personal saviour, then I disagree and would point out all the people in the world who are good and loving who have never heard of Christ.

So yes, I agree that works are a necessary part of the life of faith in that they are the proof of newness of life and walking by the Spirit, but they are not required to become a new creation in Christ.

If all you mean to say here is that a person can have their inner heart changed and subsequently express that change through their works, then obviously that is true and pretty obvious. The New Testament says repeatedly that the key parts of Christian salvation is the transformation of a person's inner character from evil to good and change in their relationships with others that reflects a new concern and love for others. The New Testament tends to not individualize salvation as much as modern Christianity has tended to. So, though an individual may be saved by having their internal character changed, the community is not saved until people act different toward each other.

When do we have salvation? Or, when are we saved? By "when" I do not mean "the conditions" of salvation, as in "how", but in the temporal meaning of the actual word. At what time in our life is our salvation secure?

An individual experiences salvation the moment their inner character changes - at the time the early Christians called "repentance", the Catholics called "justification" and the Calvinists call "regeneration". A community experiences salvation the moment when people's broken relationships are healed and people care for those in need and love other people. The New Testament repeatedly comments that salvation is not secure and can always be lost if people turn back to their old ways of living, the final judgment at the end of time becomes the moment of security.

[sage]

This is why there was a need for a new righteousness, that is, the righteous through faith in Christ.

I cannot believe the righteousness that Jesus was referring to had anything to do with faith as faith and righteous are two different entities. Faith is linked to belief while righteous to deeds. If you look at the Ten Commandments and Jewish strict law, Jesus had renewed some of the laws. On Sabbath day, instead of avoiding work, Jesus demonstrated the importance of helping others during that day. Instead of ‘an eye for and eye’ He suggested turning the other cheek also. Instead of keeping at bay from sinners, He suggested to assist them. ‘Greatest love has no one than he who gives his life for others.’ These are some of the new righteousness Jesus was talking about. ‘Be perfect as you heavenly Father is perfect.’

If you look it in this manner, the Faith that Jesus was talking about would NOT be similar to what some of us now believe. One thing was certain, the deeds He was talking about was different to what the Jews once believed. Therefore I am skeptical if we could be saved by faith alone because you have to understand what the righteousness is and the meaning to ‘Be perfect’; ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’

What then is righteousness?

[Sparko]

\
So, um, you think Pelagianism is works based salvation...
Go and read this now, right now. ...have you read it yet?.

right I am going to go by someone's blog?


Pelagianism is very close to your moral exemplar model that you hold to.

In it Pelagius denied the primitive state in paradise and original sin (cf. P. L., XXX, 678, "Insaniunt, qui de Adam per traducem asserunt ad nos venire peccatum"), insisted on the naturalness of concupiscence and the death of the body, and ascribed the actual existence and universality of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin. As all his ideas were chiefly rooted in the old, pagan philosophy, especially in the popular system of the Stoics, rather than in Christianity, he regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), when steeled by asceticism, as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue. The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm


Abelard was condemned in part for being pelagian, tercel.