[quote=George Blaisdell;2799216]

Originally posted by Arsenios

I mean, is there ANYWHERE in your confession that agrees with the Bible in the Book of James where he plainly tells us that works perfect faith, and without works, one's faith is dead - eg has NO salvation??

Arsenios

Faith without works is dead. Works are integral to faith. In a way, it is like the "Semitic totality concept"; if I say I am a Christian and there is no doing associated with it, my faith is in vain. This is what St. James--who I think we will all agree is a Semite, is talking about.

However, under no circumstances do our works earn us justification, we are justified by faith.

Consider this, We do not live if we do not breath. But our breathing does not cause us to be born, but as living things we must breath. So, breathing is necessary for life.

Also, we do good works because everyone is our neighbor, and Christ has died for everyone--not to "earn" or "attract" more grace.

Finally, when you say "WORKS UNTO SALVATION", how does this not work out to making God a debtor? It also implies that Jesus' work on the criss is insufficient.

If "unto" means we are somehow rewarded with salvation for our good works, then I will strongly disagree.

For what it is worth, this prayer supplied by Jawa sounds pretty "Lutheran" to me, even going so far as to say we do not merit salvation by works etc.

link: http://tinyurl.com/ygfcl3c

Prayer from Jawa

"O my plenteously-merciful and all-merciful God, Lord Jesus Christ, through Thy great love Thou didst come down and become incarnate that Thou mightest save all. And again, O Saviour, save me by Thy grace, I pray Thee. For if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty; yea, Thou Who art great in compassion and ineffable in mercy. For he that believeth in Me, Thou hast said, O my Christ, shall live and never see death. If, then, faith in Thee saveth the desperate, behold, I believe, save me, for Thou art my God and Creator. Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me. But may my faith suffice instead of all works, may it answer for, may it acquit me, may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory. And let Satan not seize me and boast, O Word, that he hath torn me from Thy hand and fold. But whether I desire it or not, save me, O Christ my Saviour, forestall me quickly, quickly, for I perish. Thou art my God from my mother's womb. Vouchsafe me, O Lord, to love Thee now as fervently as I once loved sin itself, and also to work for Thee without idleness, diligently, as I worked before for deceptive Satan. But supremely shall I work for Thee, my Lord and God, Jesus Christ, all the days of my life, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

---

© source where applicable

Now, perhaps someone will say, as Jezz did, that grace simply means "unforced benevolence", but that does not seem to be the flow of the prayer to me. I also think we all agree God is not forced to do anything. Given that is the case, simply interpreting the term "grace" as "something God is not forced to do" makes striving for grace seem rather silly. Why "strive" if you cannot "earn"? For example, my son likes to watch TV. When he does good, I, by "grace", allow him to watch TV. I think you will find very few people who would say he did not in a major way "earn" his TV time as a reward for good behavior. even if this notion were true, certainly our fallen minds will "make the connection"--more works means I get more grace, thus I am rewarded bygrace for my good works. Isn't it less "selfish" to do good works simply because they are commanded, and that we are here to serve our neighbor?

I admit there may be some context in this prayer about which I am unaware, or that there is an issue of translation. Other than that, this EO prayer seems a lot closer to Lutheran teaching than it does what George is saying. For one, the prayer cites what seems to be John 3:16. When one juxtaposes "For he that believeth in Me, Thou hast said, O my Christ, shall live and never see death" with "Let faith instead of works be imputed to me, O my God, for Thou wilt find no works which could justify me" and "if Thou shouldst save me for my works, this would not be grace or a gift, but rather a duty" it becomes very difficult to maintsain what George is saying AND that this prayer is fully Orthodox without some fancy theologizing.

I am not claiming this prayer "proves" George is necessarily wrong regarding EOdoxy, just that there could be more "legitimate" EOdox theologies than what we typically see here on TWeb.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

This confession clearly DENIES THE NEED FOR WORKS UNTO SALVATION
....
I mean, is there ANYWHERE in your confession that agrees with the Bible in the Book of James where he plainly tells us that works perfect faith, and without works, one's faith is dead - eg has NO salvation??

Arsenios

Augsburg says it is necessary to do good works. I don't see that this is inconsistent with what you're saying. I think you're quibbling over words. See James 4:11-12.

Originally posted by Maxentius

Welcome back Jezz!

Except that "schism" and "schismatic" is not used in such a prosaic sense. It is used, in ecclesial discussions, to label one side as wrong.

No, it isn't simply used to label one side as wrong. That is how you are using it - and that is not the correct way to use it. The problem is that you are confusing a word's meaning with its connotation.

However, the plain, historical fact is that the Lutheran church split from the RCC, and not the other way around. Thus, the plain historical fact is that the Lutherans are schismatic wrt the RCC, and not the other way around. That is simply what "schismatic" means.

Of course the RCC, with their self-belief of being the one true Church, consider any sort of split from them to be a grave sin. That is why when they say that you are schismatic, the connotation is that they believe that you are wrong. You naturally want to counter the connotation that you are wrong...But, as I pointed out above, you can' t really argue with the fact that you are schismatic. History shows that you are. Thus, as I said before, what you need to do is argue that being schismatic does not necessarily mean that you are wrong. In fact, it is only because (from your POV) the RCC is wrong that you can justify splitting from them.

If you want to say that the RCC is wrong, then say that they are wrong. But to try and shake the "schismatic" label and to say that not you, but they are schismatic is redefining words and doing violence to the language.

Originally posted by Jezz

However, the plain, historical fact is that the Lutheran church split from the RCC, and not the other way around.

That doesn't matter if the Lutheran Church is the true inheritor of the Western Tradition, because then the RCC "schismed" from the One True Church. I already pointed out no one says he is the schismatic--I wonder why that is? Also, as Hedrik ha spointed out, schism means "division", and therefore saying one church is in schism while another is not makes a hash of things unless one is claiming to be the Church from which the other schismed, period. That is why in ecclesial usage it is used to call the other party wrong.

Thus, the plain historical fact is that the Lutherans are schismatic wrt the RCC, and not the other way around. That is simply what "schismatic" means.

No, it is not a "plain historical fact", it is a rhetorical device used to try and gain the upper hand and wave away the other guy as a "schismatic". This is so obvious I am surprised you would gainsay it.

Eg: Who are the schismatics from the Great Schism, the EOCs or the RCC?

The answer will be determined by what church one belongs to, not "plain historical facts", which is why the term, in ecclesial usage, is really meant to say the other guy is wrong while taking the rhetorical position that one's own church is obviously the true Church. Which is OK, but it is also OK to point out the rhetorical device as the empty rhetoric that it is.

Originally posted by Arsenios

This [Augsburg] confession clearly DENIES THE NEED FOR WORKS UNTO SALVATION

....
I mean, is there ANYWHERE in your confession that agrees with the Bible in the Book of James where he plainly tells us that works perfect faith, and without works, one's faith is dead - eg has NO salvation??

Arsenios

Originally posted by hedrick

Augsburg says it is necessary to do good works.

It does NOT say that works are needed unto salvation...

If you do the works of sin, you will throw away your salvation, and if you do the works of the Faith, you will FIND it...

EOD & Quid Erat Splat

I don't see that this is inconsistent with what you're saying. I think you're quibbling over words. See James 4:11-12.

Perhaps it is swimming a little more clearly into some sort of vague focus???

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

I mean, is there ANYWHERE in your confession that agrees with the Bible in the Book of James where he plainly tells us that works perfect faith, and without works, one's faith is dead - eg has NO salvation??

No confession or prayer or liturgy says everything that can be said on a given topic. But here are some standard Reformed discussions of the need for good works:

Augsburg Confession

it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God... And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing... Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works.

---

© source where applicable

Westminster Confession

16.2 These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

33.1 God hath appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

---

© source where applicable

Rberman,

You're going to get in trouble for calling the Augustana "Reformed".

Originally posted by Anoetos

Rberman,

You're going to get in trouble for calling the Augustana "Reformed".

Augustana?

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

....
It does NOT say that works are needed unto salvation...

If you do the works of sin, you will throw away your salvation, and if you do the works of the Faith, you will FIND it...

James does connect works with faith. He requires a faith that is shown through works. Augsburg is using a different wording but saying the same thing. James is dealing with people who apparently think their faith doesn't have to be active. Luther was dealing with the opposite problem, If you read the confutation and defense you'll see why it was worded as it was. Luther was dealing with positions that as far as I know have not been taken by the EO, which would separate works from faith, and say that works at least in some sense merit God's mercy. Thus Augsburg notes that it is only works that proceed from faith that matter. James actually makes that same connection, but he's dealing with the opposite problem, so the wording is different.

The same is of course true between Paul and James. They very nearly contradict each other. However they are dealing with different situations and different questions. The Lutherans were facing a similar situation to Paul, and thus emphasize him. They're not attacking you. They're attacking a position that even Catholics may no longer hold.

Now the question of what happens when we sin is not being dealt with in either the part of Augsburg that you quoted or in this part of James, except in general terms that what we do matters, which is said in both places. There is more to be said on this topic, but it's not the focus of this passage, and demanding that that particular section of Augsburg deal with it is unfair.

There is a section on repentance, which holds what I would think to be a fairly conventional position (and one that I'm not sure agrees with Luther): that there is forgiveness for sin after baptism by repentance, and that one can lose salvation after justification. (It says can lose the Holy Ghost, but I assume that's the implication.)

I sense a certain lack of charity in this discussion. It is easy to take passages out of any writer and be offended by them. If you don't start with a willingness to take what they say in a sympathetic way, you can even unintentionally read anyone hostilely. With the greatest love I suggest to you that before you start reading Luther and Lutheran confessions you start with an acknowledgement that they are your brothers in Christ. If you're not willing to do that, and you may not be, then I think discussions like this are going to be like clanging cymbals.

Originally posted by Anoetos

Rberman,

You're going to get in trouble for calling the Augustana "Reformed".

Point taken. I consider Lutherans to be kissing cousins of the Reformed. You're welcome at my communion table any day!

Augustana = Latin use for the Augsburg Confession

Augsburg was an imperial city...named for Augustus by Nero Germanicus, I believe.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

....
I mean, is there ANYWHERE in your confession that agrees with the Bible in the Book of James where he plainly tells us that works perfect faith, and without works, one's faith is dead - eg has NO salvation??

That is correct, if I do not do good works, I don't really have faith, which means I stand before God and attempt to justify myself, which will fail. The issue is do we earn our salvation by doing good? Since we both agree we are unprofitable servants, I don't see how we earn anything at all, as "unprofitable" would mean our good works would, at best, make us even. But since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, we cannot even claim that--we need something to make up the difference between our failings and the righteousness for which we were created.

It does NOT say that works are needed unto salvation...

Good works are necessary for salvation. I see that as a legitimate synonym for "needed". E.g. it "is necessary for me to eat to live", and "I need to eat to live". I just don't see the chasm.

As an aside: Would you agree some may be saved without good works? I am thinking of baptized infants and the thief on the cross as examples.

If you do the works of sin, you will throw away your salvation, and if you do the works of the Faith, you will FIND it...

I am uncomfortable with my "finding" salvation--again, it implies that salvation is some sort of reward for good behavior. Maybe you don't mean to imply that.

What Lutherans would say is that we do good works of our own free will out of love for God and our neighbor--not to find anything, because he already found us.

Originally posted by Maxentius

That is correct, if I do not do good works, I don't really have faith, which means I stand before God and attempt to justify myself, which will fail. The issue is do we earn our salvation by doing good? Since we both agree we are unprofitable servants, I don't see how we earn anything at all, as "unprofitable" would mean our good works would, at best, make us even. But since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, we cannot even claim that--we need something to make up the difference between our failings and the righteousness for which we were created.



Good works are necessary for salvation. I see that as a legitimate synonym for "needed". E.g. it "is necessary for me to eat to live", and "I need to eat to live". I just don't see the chasm.

As an aside: Would you agree some may be saved without good works? I am thinking of baptized infants and the thief on the cross as examples.



I am uncomfortable with my "finding" salvation--again, it implies that salvation is some sort of reward for good behavior. Maybe you don't mean to imply that.

What Lutherans would say is that we do good works of our own free will out of love for God and our neighbor--not to find anything, because he already found us.

We ALL DO WORKS... The ONLY question is, WHICH WORKS? James CLEARLY STATES that the works of Faith PERFECT one's Faith, and it is the MATURE in the Faith who are the REPOSITORY of the Faith... Unless you are prepared to argue that the immature babies in the Faith are "saved"... eg are HEALED from their infirmities and are no longer able to be sinning, as John writes, then you have to say that this salvation is a product of God's Grace in response to the works of Faith...

Does the Augsburg confession even HAVE the category of the works of faith?

I really seriously think that the fact of the works of which Paul wrote being the works of the Law, and not the works of Faith, was LOST on those writing the Augsburg Confession... It is not ALL WORKS, but the keeping of the Judaic Law which Paul condemns as being not salvific...

And again, BECAUSE works perfect faith, they are needed for the healing of the soul, which is the pathway to salvation, which is oneness with God...

Arsenios

Originally posted by hedrick

James does connect works with faith. He requires a faith that is shown through works.

He clearly tells us that works perfect faith - eg Bring faith to maturity... Do you seriously deny this?

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

He clearly tells us that works perfect faith - eg Bring faith to maturity... Do you seriously deny this?

Arsenios

Yes, he says no such thing. He says that works prove faith.