Romans 11:6 says "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
Grace and Works are incompatible. If you try to work grace is no longer grace. Works are incompatible with grace. It is a statement of fact. If you are saved by works, then you are not saved by grace.. and if we are not saved by grace, we are not saved. I think this is pretty clear and hard to argue against. We are saved by one or the other.
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
I submit to you, that these people believed that Christ would save them after he saw all the works they were doing for him. They seem to expect it, so they had faith in him, but relied on their works to be worthy.
If you are trusting in 2 people to accomplish something for you, you are not trusting one. That to me is clear. If you think it takes 2 people or 2 things to do something, you are not trusting one to do it. Thus someone who is believes that works and Christ will save them, does NOT believe that Christ will save them.
If you think you can lose eternal life, then you can't be trusting in Christ for it alone. You are trusting in Christ and yourself, and since Christ won't fail, ultimately its up to you to save yourself. Does that make sense?
Faith in 2 things is NOT faith in one thing
I challenge anyone to please give me an example where trusting in 1 thing and 2 things for the samething is the same? I think its impossible but I know there are many smarter then me.
Grace and Truth
Trent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
A couple things:
First, saying that God saves us by grace apart from works is not the same thing as saying that one has to believe that God saves us by grace apart from works in order to be saved.
Second, the text from Matthew 7 does not tell us exactly what these people believed. They were probably false prophets and the implication is that they thought their works would save them. What is not clear is whether they thought their works were the efficient cause of their salvation or a secondary cause of their salvation. It is not clear from the text that these people believed in Christ to save them because of their works. It could be the case that these people believed they were saved by their works and Christ had nothing to do with it.
Third, you say, “…someone who is believes [sic] that works and Christ will save them, does NOT believe that Christ will save them.” This is not necessarily true. A person can (and many do) believe that Christ will save them through their works. It all depends on whether works are viewed as the efficient cause or an instrumental cause of salvation. Someone could be trusting in his works alone apart from Christ, in which case works are the efficient cause. Others may be trusting Christ to save them on the basis of their works. Still others could be trusting in Christ to enable them to do salvific works. In the first instance, these people are not trusting in Christ to save them. In the latter two, these individuals are trusting in Christ to save them.
I guess my overall concern is that these issues need to be fleshed out more clearly.
Hi Scott, thanks for interacting! :) This is an interesting issue that I had not considered in this way before my new friend George challenged me on this so my apologies if this is not fully fleshed out.
Scott Said "First, saying that God saves us by grace apart from works is not the same thing as saying that one has to believe that God saves us by grace apart from works in order to be saved."
Fair enough. However, if someone is trying to work for their Salvation, they are not believing in Christ for it. Unless you believe in Universalism, then I think the point is still valid.
Scott said "Second, the text from Matthew 7 does not tell us exactly what these people believed. They were probably false prophets and the implication is that they thought their works would save them."
It does not say they were false prophets. It does say they were doing things in his name, not theirs. Obviously there are many people in many religions thinking they can earn heaven. This context has people who are thinking they are serving Christ. Thus I think it fits the context to have them thinking he would save them based on their actions. Regardless, they believed they were saved by their works. If you believe you have to believe in Christ and your works, you still believe your works save you.
Scott says "Third, you say, “…someone who is believes [sic] that works and Christ will save them, does NOT believe that Christ will save them.” This is not necessarily true. A person can (and many do) believe that Christ will save them through their works. "
In other words, their works save them. If they don't do them, they are not saved. Therefore they are trusting in their works to save them.
Scott says "It all depends on whether works are viewed as the efficient cause or an instrumental cause of salvation. Someone could be trusting in his works alone apart from Christ, in which case works are the efficient cause. Others may be trusting Christ to save them on the basis of their works."
The end result is the same. They must do works or they do not have eternal life. They are trusting in their works to save them. Believing Christ will save them because of their works, still puts their faith in the works to save them. If they are not saved with out them, then they must have them.
Scotts says "Still others could be trusting in Christ to enable them to do salvific works. In the first instance, these people are not trusting in Christ to save them. In the latter two, these individuals are trusting in Christ to save them. "
No, they are trusting in Christ to save them IF they do works. I.E. Faith in Christ + Works = Eternal life. That is not the same as Faith in Christ = Eternal life. You can say one or the other gives eternal life, or you can try and claim they both give eternal life, but you can't say they are the same. (or, if you do claim they are the same, please give me an example. )
Since the Bible teaches Faith in Christ = Eternal life, I want to do the same.
Thanks for your responses. I’m not convinced, however, that you’ve made a case for your position. I agree that we receive eternal life through faith alone in Christ alone. What I’m not clear about is the claim that one has to believe this in order to have eternal life. The Scriptures indicate the former but not the latter, at least that I’m aware of. Let me elaborate a bit.
The Matthew text in dispute is in the context of a warning about false prophets (7:15). It stands to reason that this continues into verses 21-23. (Hodges thinks this is correct in his discussion of the text in “Grace in Eclipse.”) As “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” they were all about themselves. Thus they had no trust in Christ for eternal life whatsoever.
But the larger point is that just because one thinks works have something to do with their salvation does not mean they are not trusting in Christ for it. Again, the fundamental distinction concerns efficient and instrumental causes. Let me illustrate. We know that the Bible teaches that we should rely upon (trust) God for all our needs. So if I get a job so that I can buy food and clothing (needs) for my family, does that mean that I am not relying upon (or trusting) God for all my needs? According to your reasoning, I am trusting in my job and not God. I don’t think this works. Why can’t I trust in God (the efficient cause) to supply my needs through my work (the instrumental cause)?
In the same way, I can imagine people trusting in Christ for salvation (eternal life) yet thinking their works, baptism, or faithfulness has some instrumental value in maintaining it or securing it over time. Although they are mistaken, perhaps lacking in understanding in the details, they are nonetheless trusting in Christ for eternal life and that alone is what saves them.
Morning Scott. :)
Scott said "Let me illustrate. We know that the Bible teaches that we should rely upon (trust) God for all our needs. So if I get a job so that I can buy food and clothing (needs) for my family, does that mean that I am not relying upon (or trusting) God for all my needs? According to your reasoning, I am trusting in my job and not God. I don’t think this works. Why can’t I trust in God (the efficient cause) to supply my needs through my work (the instrumental cause)?"
Thats an interesting point Scott, and I had not thought about it like that. Let me consider that for a bit and get back to you.
Ok Scott, I spent some time meditating on this and I don't think it carries over. I think we both know that although we are to trust God for our Physical needs, not only are we supposed to work for them (the bible is clear for that) he also does not guarantee them. We just are not to worry about it. On the other hand, Belief in Christ he promises will gain us eternal life.
Could you post the verses you are referring to so I can see if the greek is the same? Or is someone here is a greek scholar.
If I am believing in Christ for my food, then no, I would not work for them. Not if I understand how belief is used for eternal life. Trusting in someone to do something based on my actions is not just trusting in him. I will hold any other comments until you refer to the passage. I like your argument and want to review it more.
My inheritance however, I trust Christ will reward me based on my works. However, I am not just trusting in him for it because I know it relies on my actions too. If I thought that all rewards were promised to me simply because of his love as well, then then I would not work for them.
I await your response. :)
Peace and Truth
Trent
P.S. Although I like some of Hodges writings, I am not as famailiar with a lot of them as you seem to be, so I prefer to make our arguments from the text or greek grammar etc rather then one someone else believes. I don't believe we should follow any person, though learning from them is fine if that makes sense. :) Like my blog descriptions says.
I think it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly what your thesis is. Initially you claimed, “If you think it takes 2 people or 2 things to do something, you are not trusting one to do it.” So your challenge was, “…please give me an example where trusting in 1 thing and 2 things for the samething is the same? I think its impossible but I know there are many smarter then me.” Of course, putting it that way is problematic. But I suggested that if one recognizes the distinction between an efficient cause and an instrumental cause, one can make sense of trusting in God to supply one’s needs through instrumental causes. In no way does that diminish the fact that one is trusting in God alone as the efficient cause for one’s needs.
My point is that it does not necessarily follow that because one thinks one’s works have some instrumental value, that one is not trusting in Christ alone as the efficient cause of his salvation. In other words, the sense in which a person is trusting in Christ for eternal life is different (in this case) than the sense in which he trusts in his works of obedience. You seem to want to equate them, which is an oversimplification.
Again, it sounds like you’re saying that if an individual does not believe that salvation (justification) is by faith alone in Christ alone, then that person cannot be saved by faith alone in Christ alone. If this is your actual thesis, then I challenge you to prove it from Scripture.
Hi Scott!
Scott said "I think it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly what your thesis is. Initially you claimed, “If you think it takes 2 people or 2 things to do something, you are not trusting one to do it.” So your challenge was, “…please give me an example where trusting in 1 thing and 2 things for the samething is the same?"
yes, that is my thesis. :)
Scott said "Of course, putting it that way is problematic. But I suggested that if one recognizes the distinction between an efficient cause and an instrumental cause, one can make sense of trusting in God to supply one’s needs through instrumental causes. In no way does that diminish the fact that one is trusting in God alone as the efficient cause for one’s needs. "
I think I disagree. If you are trusing in God alone, then you are not trusting in yourself. If you are saying that you are trusting God to work through you, then it is complicated. :) You have no assurance, but I think I could see someone believing it at first and being saved.. believing that God is doing everything and they have no choice.. definetely complicated but I see your point.
Scott said "My point is that it does not necessarily follow that because one thinks one’s works have some instrumental value, that one is not trusting in Christ alone as the efficient cause of his salvation. In other words, the sense in which a person is trusting in Christ for eternal life is different (in this case) than the sense in which he trusts in his works of obedience. You seem to want to equate them, which is an oversimplification."
in the case I gave above, I think I see the validity of your point.. but in that case, you will note that you are still only trusting in Christ and that is why you will lose your assurance. Christ is still responsible for the works, not you and thus when they do not come or not enough or however you look at it, you will doubt your salvation even though I can see you would be saved. :) Am I understanding your point? If I am, I agree with it, but my Thesis still stands. He is Trusting in Christ for his eternal life and for his works that will prove out his salvation...
Scott says "Again, it sounds like you’re saying that if an individual does not believe that salvation (justification) is by faith alone in Christ alone, then that person cannot be saved by faith alone in Christ alone. "
I am not sure you can believe something if you don't believe it, but I believe that Eternal life is by faith alone in Christ alone.. so if they have it they have eternal life. Please do give me the references for your example so I can research them. I want to study it to see if they make a point.
To try and demonstrate this for you, I am going to reverse it. If salvation was by Faith and works, and I only had faith, would I have eternal life? Is Faith + works the same as Faith? If not, then you have the people in matthew again who had faith + works. No, they did not have faith alone in Christ alone obviously, but thats the point. They believed God would save them because of their works.
I have asked Lou Martuneac as politely as I can (several times) to stop emailing my wife with his derogatory, intimidating, high-minded, and threatening, letters. This drove me to my wits end. He has backed off for a while until just recently. It has come to my attention that he has started the harassment again.
Is he going about the blogosphere looking for every American girl to pick on? Does he email your wife when you have told him to stop? Do you know anything about this annoying anonymous blogger other than his oft repeated boast, “I have written a book?”
John
Personally I have no idea. Lou has way to much time in his hands, and apparently is a lot more concerned with arguing and bothering people then actually convincing them of anything. People like that used to be called flamers. I am sorry he hooked on to you. He seems to just enjoy attacking people and not care about responses as he already "knows" he is right. Pray for him.
To All:
This morning I sent an apology via e-mail to Rose and John. The apology was NOT for having included Rose in a bulk e-mail. My apology was in regard to how I reacted to John’s two paragraph comment that I find disingenuous on several levels.
Never-the-less, my reaction was not right, the Holy Spirit convicted me of it, and I responded to Him. I immediately deleted my reply, posted both a public apology and the e-mail to Rose and John I mentioned above.
Furthermore, in the e-mail apology I also asked for their forgiveness.
Even though both Rose and John have been active in the blogs today, neither of them have acknowledged nor accepted my apology. Neither one has indicated or written to forgive me as I requested.
“And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your Father also which is in Heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in Heaven forgive your trespasses,” (Mark 11:25-26).
I did my best following my conscience and the leading of the Holy Spirit to make this right and bring closure. Unless I hear otherwise, it appears Rose and John are not willing to bring closure.
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1 John 1:9).
As far as I am concerned this is a closed issue and under the blood, whether or not Rose and John will respond appropriately.
LM
Lou, I am impressed with your willingness to publicly apologise regardless of the reception of it. Thank you for your post.
Now you keep quoting 1 Cor 6:9 but ignoring the larger context like 1 Cor 6:18-19. Paul says to believers
"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? "
I only am going there because you refuse to discuss one passage as soon as you get uncomfortable. What does that mean to you? You said lets discuss 1 John. Lets do it. Then we can go somewhere else. Context is everything.
Please quote the Lords prayer for me.
Lb says "If you want to talk about somebody’s theology getting in the way, include yourself. You seem determined to prove that 1:9 is not referring to Gnostics. If the Gnostics are not referred to in 1 John 1:9, where are the Gnostics referred to in 1 John? "
I am determined to Let John speak for himself, so lets find the gnostics. So far you continue to try and avoid stating how you understand scripture, instead waffling. I am not saying we won't find Gnostics in 1 John, but I am saying don't put them in before John does, fair? Now, again, if you are going to say WE is different then the first verses, I want to know why. If you are willing to accept it says what it means, then lets move on.
LB says "If RAPE, MURDER, INCEST, etc is lawful for a believer, RAPE, MURDER, INCEST, etc is not sin for a believer. Are all things lawful for a believer?"
It depends what you mean by lawful. If you mean since I am undergrace and not the law, then yes, BUT if you mean to say it is not Sin, then according to the context Paul is speaking of, NO. Quote the Lords prayer and lets discuss it, keeping in mind that the Gospels were written after the Resurrection. Now According to your Theology, Rape, abortion, incest and murder are lawful but inside of you, you know how wrong that feels so you refuse to come right and and state that is what you believe. Now you can see it is not biblical. Now, one more thing. As believers, Paul says that we are to REFUSE fellowship with believers who are living in SIN. note the lack of fellowship and the fact that they are in Sin. Not someone who sins, but someone who is living in sin and refuses to get right. You think God tells us to not put up with hit but he does? God turned 2 believers over to Satan for discipline you may remember. Who ever is teaching you this Heresy will be judged as James says as Teachers have a stricter judgement.
Please be honest with where you stand and don't avoid questions. Lets get back into 1 John. Tell me that either the WE is still the same people in the former verses OR give me why its not in your own words. Then quote the Lords prayer please.
Post a Comment