For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
We need to be careful, with Ephesians 2:8-10, not to try to force it to bear too much theological baggage. As St. John Chrysostom points out (see my first post of today), it isn’t meant to deny the role of free will. It doesn’t mean God decides not to accept any of our works, in order to keep us humble, and decides to accept only faith instead. Rather, it means God accepts us on the basis of our faith precisely because we come to Him bereft of any worthy works. What we once supposed were our good deeds turn out, in the harsh light of reality, to be about as spotless as used menstrual pads. (Isaiah 64:6) They were all done in the service of the beast within.
This passage means nothing we can do ever earns salvation, because it isn’t earnable; it’s a pure gift; it’s free, from God’s own loving Heart. Moreover, we ourselves do not have the power to do the things saving us requires, such as the power to unite divine nature with human nature or to kill death by dying, or to ascend into heaven.
If we try to make more of these verses, if for instance we hang from this passage a theory that we humans cannot contribute one single thing, however slight, to our salvation, not even our free choice to accept the faith God offers us, then the difference between our being saved or not will rest, ultimately, with God. The paradox Lutherans and others offer us won’t hold. According to it, if we are saved, the glory is all God’s, and if we are lost, the fault is all our own. This is true, but (paradoxically!) only if we have free will. Because what fault is it of mine that I willed only evil, if I was born, indeed conceived, unable to will anything else? No, if my salvation depends exclusively upon God, and He has all the power to save, and chooses to save you but not me, then it is His doing that I am lost. And this is so even if God only passively chooses to damn me; that is, does not choose to save me. Either way, my fate is His choice alone. That’s another way of asserting that “Double Predestination” (God chooses to save some and chooses to damn others) and “Single Predestination” (God chooses to save some but not all) are practically and morally identical.
And in that case, you contradict the whole rest of the Christian message about Who God is, and contradict certain other biblical passages as well, such as I Timothy 2:4, which speaks of God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” and Ezekiel 33:11, “Say unto them, [As] I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” and 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (See also Ezekiel 18:23 and 18:32)
Faith in Christ is something God makes possible for us, but we still either embrace or reject Him. To reject Christ makes it impossible for God to get any further with us. To embrace Christ (in faith) is a work, yes, face it, a work. It isn’t a work that makes us worthy of anything, but faith in Christ does make it possible for Grace to proceed with His transfiguring (saving) work in us. Faith isn't what saves us, Grace is. Faith is not why God saves us, His Love alone is. But faith in Christ is the instrument through which God is able to work in us. In that sense, salvation does indeed depend upon it.
And if you do not wish to affirm some capricious, monster god, there’s no way around this: you have to admit that to go with Christ or to reject Him is ultimately up to us; and that our own rejecting of Him when we could have chosen Him (rejecting Him, as distinct from merely not yet having acquired faith in Him) is what sinks us, and not God’s omitting to do anything whatsoever for the salvation of every single one of us.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
More Thoughts (Mine) on Ephesians 2:8-10
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 4:49 PM
Labels: Faith Alone, Free Will, Orthodoxy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hi Anastasia
I think you misrepresent the Lutheran position. The Lutheran view on predestination, as I have been taught it, is straight from Ephesians 1: that predestination itself is *in Christ* -- one of the spiritual blessings that we receive only in Christ and through Christ, so that *anyone in the world* can be predestined to sonship through the encounter with Christ. There is no "group of people whom God chooses to pass over" in any Lutheran teaching I have ever heard. In the encounter with Christ, predestination to sonship is one of the blessings in Christ's hand.
The typical objection to the view which you have articulated is that it seems somewhat semi-Pelagian: a person contributes something of his own free will, prior to be saved, coming from his fallen nature -- the same human will which produces those charming "good works" that are politely mistranslated "filthy rags" in my translation. The logical conclusion is that those who are damned weren't good enough at the outset so they couldn't make that free choice.
The Lutheran answer is that anyone becomes free in the presence of Christ, and no one is free apart from it; that Christ draws even the most evil person so that there is no such thing as a person who couldn't manage the little free will bit that was required to save themselves or add themselves to the number of the saved, but the lost are those who reject; so that 'accepting' was not within the power of the fallen man, but rejecting is within the power of the saved one.
I'm sure we can never agree on this, given where we stand, but it might help us an inch towards understanding if you did know: in Lutheran terms, there is no such thing as the man God chooses to pass over. There is no ... how did you put it ... "capricious, monster god"; on the contrary, there is one who builds faith in us by showing his faithfulness in and through Christ. On this and on this alone is faith built.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Dear Anne,
Thank you, who are one of my very favorite non-Orthodox theologians, for clarifying the Lutheran position. Here are a few questions for further clarification. Perhaps we actually CAN agree – or not, depending upon what your reply will be…
You say, “There is no ‘group of people whom God chooses to pass over’ in any Lutheran teaching I have ever heard.” Does this mean God grants the gift of faith, with the chance to embrace Christ, to everyone? He doesn’t choose only some? He does not omit to do for every person everything necessary for his salvation? If so, we basically agree.
And again, “anyone becomes free in the presence of Christ, and no one is free apart from it; ... Christ draws even the most evil person so that there is no such thing as a person who couldn't manage the little free will bit that was required to save themselves or add themselves to the number of the saved…” That sounds good and on the face of it, I agree. But… Since Christ is everywhere present and moreover draws even the most evil person, do you mean everybody without exception at some point in his existence has that little bit of free will required? If so, we basically agree.
And again, “in Lutheran terms, there is no such thing as the man God chooses to pass over.” Do you mean God gives a genuine, authentic, chance for salvation to one and all, period? He does not withhold this much Grace from anybody? If so, we basically agree.
But then how do you account for some being saved but not necessarily all? I can’t get my mind around the concept of the “already saved” rejecting faith. If they do that, they aren’t saved after all, are they?
The Pelagian controversy can only exist where salvation is based upon merit, hence, where there is concern over whose merit, whose credit, whose glory. It must be all Christ’s. In Augustinian thinking, where salvation is by merit (Christ’s merit), one must never be thought to contribute to ones own salvation because that would make one meritorious, and God must give merit its proportionate, due reward. But none of this applies in Orthodox theology. There, salvation is not a matter of rewarding merit, not even rewarding Christ’s merit. Salvation is not a reward at all, nor any other sort of response, but pure, pro-active gift from the goodness of God’s heart. That is why to say we contribute our own little “Yes” is not at all semi-Pelagian within an Orthodox context, as it is within an Augustinian context.
Hi Anastasia
Kind of you to have so much patience with a different view.
If you are interested in the Reader's Digest version, we aren't in complete agreement but maybe closer than we thought. You'll see a lot of different definitions, different starting points ... So on to the details ...
Does this mean God grants the gift of faith, with the chance to embrace Christ, to everyone? He doesn’t choose only some? He does not omit to do for every person everything necessary for his salvation? If so, we basically agree.
Have you ever had someone phrase a question that's not quite how you'd put it, and a simple "yes" would put words into your mouth that you'd never say? I find myself needing to rephrase, but when I'm done we're not too far apart: I think the clearest thing I can say about God's choosing is that God chooses to save us through Christ, that God has chosen what is weak and what is foolish in the world's eyes. Probably John the Theologian put it plainest: "He who has the Son has eternal life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." (freely paraphrasing, 1 John 5:12) So does God "choose only some"? If you mean he chooses to save us through Christ then yes; if you mean he chooses some to come to Christ and others not, then no. God has done for every person what is necessary for salvation; bear in mind Lutherans see "faith" very differently from most Protestants. To us "faith" means "recognizing that God is faithful". Take a peek at Acts 17:31 in Greek. God has given "faith" (or "proof that he is faithful" which to a Lutheran is the inseparable other side of the same coin) to all by raising Christ from the dead. So that now the proclamation of Christ is the word that brings faith by hearing it. Watch how someone despairing reacts when you proclaim God's trustworthiness, and how God in Christ has shown the whole world his trustworthiness.
But… Since Christ is everywhere present and moreover draws even the most evil person, do you mean everybody without exception at some point in his existence has that little bit of free will required?
What little bit of free will required? ;) I still don't quite get why the will needs to do something at that point, or even quite how it could. Here's some personal musing -- it seems to me that the will is, in the main, an appetite, one that sets itself to find satisfaction. Which is to say, it's never free but always attached to what it takes for satisfaction, or restless for whatever satisfies better. ("our hearts are restless til they rest in you", Augustine) So I don't hold a place for trying to pry our wills free of whatever attachments they have first; freeing ourselves from our slaveries often takes awhile even after we trust God in Christ. (Though, when it comes to our wills, I think that Christ sets them free, as a matter of course, by being the genuine and ultimate desire that satisfies the human soul.) I think what happens is more basic than the little bit of free will, something on a more primal level than will or intellect or decision. I think it happens during an act of simple recognition: we recognize that God is faithful. How do we recognize that God is faithful? Because God shows that he is faithful; he shows it in Christ. We hear the message of Christ, we recognize that God is trustworthy, and that is already faith. "He who has ears to hear ..."
Do you mean God gives a genuine, authentic, chance for salvation to one and all, period? He does not withhold this much Grace from anybody? If so, we basically agree.
And it comes to grace, always. Here's an axiomatic thing for a Lutheran: grace comes through Christ. Whenever I hear someone going on about "prevenient grace" (which you haven't, but you've probably heard it) I just cringe. By "prevenient grace", do they mean "Christ's life, death, and resurrection" and the proclamation of the same? Let them say so. But if that's not what they mean, then what kind of "grace" is this that doesn't come through Christ? Even the Holy Spirit came to the Church through Christ and was sent by Christ.
I can’t get my mind around the concept of the “already saved” rejecting faith. If they do that, they aren’t saved after all, are they?
Again it's definitions: what is it to be "saved"? Is it some quality we have in ourselves, or is it some gift we have been given into our own arms after we once believed, or is it the life we share with Christ? If it is the life of Christ, then "he who has the son has life, he who does not have the son of God does not have life." It depends on Christ, not on ourselves; there's no "salvation" we have other than Christ. So you're correct: someone who was saved (i.e. who had Christ), who then later rejects Christ, is no longer saved (i.e. no longer has Christ). If salvation is Christ, then the question almost fades away of itself. (Lutherans don't hold onto "once saved always saved"; anything that separates salvation from Christ is not going to find its welcome with us. It's also one of the fundamental complaints Lutherans have against the Calvinist vision of predestination: it turns 'predestination' into a grace that came before Christ and apart from Christ; when it comes to our salvation, it takes the seat of honor at the right hand of the Father's throne and gives it to predestination rather than to Christ.)
I know it's hard to believe that someone would have Christ then turn away, but it does happen. To me, the parable of the scattered seeds helps in picturing that. Rocky soil ... scorching sun ... there are those who believe for awhile and fall away.
-------
And here at the end of my endless ramblings in your comment box: are we understanding each other any better? We come from such different starting points that it's a wonder if we can communicate at all. I'd be glad to hear your take so that I can make sure I'm understanding you. Btw I've benefitted much from the Eastern Orthodox perspective over the years. Many Lutheran theologians (starting with Luther, I think) have been large fans of Athanasius, while we're on the subject ...
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Dear Anne,
Thank you again, and I do hope not to try your patience too far.
Okay, I have no problem with either of your two main assertions. John 15:2 makes it clear that people *in Christ* can still be pruned away. Likewise, I agree that salvation is in Christ, and never outside of Him. In fact, to say that is redundant, because Christ IS our salvation. I suspect you and I would draw out the implications of that differently…
But let’s lay that aside in an attempt to get to the nub of the issue. Let us consider for now only the people to whom Jesus Himself preached. He preached to thousands at a time, same words from the same lips, but He drew varied responses. Some repented, some walked sadly away, some plotted to kill Him. Eleven of the disciples became Apostles, but Judas betrayed Him. The thief crucified on one side of Him repented but the thief on the other side reviled Him.
The question before us, then, is, What accounts for the difference? And the point I’m making is, if you locate that difference within God, you can’t really avoid the monster-deity. I do appreciate the difficulties that arise if we locate the difference within man (as the Parable of the Sower appears to do), but those difficulties, unlike the other, are surmountable, at least within the context of Orthodox theology, they are.
Your thoughts?
Anybody else?
Hi Anastasia
Just sticking with the parable of the sower: all the good is from God (there's nothing the soil could have done to choose the seed; the soil didn't free will its way to choosing a seed). All the seed was good; there was no "fake seed", there were no duds; the difference is not in the will of God, in that God gave the seed (Christ) to all. All the evil is from the soil and/or the environment, to where the seed is snatched away, or burns up in the sun, or is choked out by the thorns.
And of course that's a static parable: the farmer sows once. But we know from the Scriptures that soil that is along a path one day (Saul) may be fertile tomorrow (Paul), as God works not only the seeds but also the soil.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Nothing soil could have done to acquire seed: check. Seed all good, no duds: check. Heavenly Sower sows more than once: check. The difference was in the soil and/or environment: check.
So far, agreement. (Imagine that!)
But now we're down to the heart of the matter. Who cleared the good ground, and weeded and tilled and watered it so the seeds would grow? Who did not do this with the hard, rocky, weedy ground?
Anastasia, you seem determined to attribute a cause there. I should say, you seem still convinced that if you keep going you will find in our theology the "capricious, monster god" you discussed, which is wholly alien to us, even if you won't believe it. I could compare it to an Orthodox who has to convince a fundamentalist that they don't actually worship saints or icons; no matter how often you say it, or how patiently you explain it, they may be so attached to their view of you that there is no detaching them from it.
It all comes down to this in the parable of the sower: all the good is from God, and the good is given without hesitation or discrimination. All the evil is *from somewhere else*, and even those ultimately lost did receive the good.
So back from the one parable to the bigger picture: God does not work with us by force. That's one of the main differences between the Lutheran view and the Calvinist view. The Calvinists see God bringing our hearts around with an "irresistible" force; people are chosen or not based on His bare will coupled with the irresistible force of "sovereign grace". There with the irresistible force is the capricious monster who could have saved everyone, but simply did not want to.
Lutherans see God as choosing to work in weakness and always working through Christ. Calvinists tell us our God is weak. He's not, but he did choose weakness (opening of I Corinthians). Salvation comes from God and is attributable only to him in that he does everything that is necessary to save a soul. Condemnation comes from opposition to God's goodness and is attributable only to the condemned, though as we have seen in the parables some peoples' stories are more complicated than that, the parable has 4 patches of ground rather than 2.
On a Lutheran view, there's no good doctrine that comes from speculating beyond what Scripture says: if God has not revealed it, we will not know it, and our speculations will never reach certainty. So for salvation, we content ourselves with knowing that God is good and has sent the world Christ, "the savior of all men, especially believers". That those who reject Christ are judged already in that "the light came and the world loved darkness better". Scripture allows no room to think that God could have done more, as if the matter of someone's heart's direction was something he could simply decree. "Judge between my vineyard and me. What more could I have done for it?" There Lutherans are content to rest: knowing God is wholly good, and more than innocent in the destruction of the sinner but had shown much benevolence, which they had rejected to their blame.
I'm afraid that if I've struck out again in showing you that we see God as benevolent and that God is wholly blameless, having neglected no soul, then I do not believe I could convince you even if I were to try 100 times. (And for the record, I know you guys don't actually worship the icons. There's a difference between that and venerating them. ;) )
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Anastasia, you seem determined to attribute a cause there.
Well, I have to admit, it never occurred to me that if a human being is condemned to hell forever, there might not be any cause. ???
While I don’t think we can know the cause in detail, I did think we could still rule out that the cause in any sense resides in God. And it sounds as if you agree. Is that correct?
I should say, you seem still convinced that if you keep going you will find in our theology the "capricious, monster god" you discussed, which is wholly alien to us, even if you won't believe it.
I do believe that you don’t believe God is a monster. I’ve never known a Lutheran who believed God was any sort of monster. However, forgive, me, I have heard numerous Lutherans assert that God is all-good and all-loving, only to attribute to Him, in the next breath, perfectly atrocious behavior. That’s why I’ve been probing a bit.
You have not done this, and I can see you do not and will not, and that’s so wonderful! (Although it’s no big surprise, from YOU. It’s why you are, as I said, one of my favorite non-Orthodox theologians.)
But then there’s still another layer to all this that needed probing. And it’s this: if you say salvation is entirely, exclusively up to God, with us playing no part whatsoever, making not the slightest contribution, yet not all people are saved , then how can you avoid drawing the conclusion that God is some sort of a monster?
And in response to this, you’ve said two things, if I’m understanding you aright. First, you simply balk at that point and decline to draw any conclusion. You point out how human reason can only carry us so far and you say we mustn’t go beyond where Scripture leads us. Now to me this doesn’t work because it comes over as just dodging. It’s what happens when flawed human logic and/or flawed biblical interpretation leads us to an unavoidable but unacceptable conclusion.
Okay, we can agree to disagree on that point. It’s what else you say that interests me much more, upon which I think we may be able to build some better agreement. You say all the evil “is from somewhere else.” You say, “Condemnation comes from opposition to God's goodness.” You say, echoing Christ, that “those who reject Christ are judged already in that ‘the light came and the world loved darkness better.’" Which sounds a lot like what I've said, which is that we locate the mystery somewhere within man and not at all in God.
So let's consider, what does it take to oppose Christ, to resist Him? Let’s say you and I were both present when Jesus preached the Parable of the Sower. And you, taking the message to heart, began cultivating the garden of your heart. You got out the spade and hoe, you hauled out the rocks, rooted out the weeds. That is, you prayed, fasted, studied the Scriptures, kept alert, made amends to whoever you had offended, struggled to obey God in all things. And let’s say I, who physically heard Him teach this parable, didn’t bother to do any of this. Am I not already resisting God by not doing what He taught me to do in this Parable? It’s no good simply to have “received the Word with joy,”as the one patch of ground did, wherein the seed later perished. That’s not yet salvation (although it's the beginning of it), because if the seed dies, I’m still lost; or if I turn out to be a barren branch, Christ is still going to prune me away.
Or suppose I was present when Jesus preached the Parable of the Talents. According to this Parable, if I simply neglect to make the most of the gift God gives me, I stand to lose it. If I have nothing to show for it, even that which I have will be taken away from me. Furthermore, if I have heard this Parable from Jesus’ own lips and still disregard it, am I not already disobeying what He has asked me to do (asked me, but with the force of a commandment)? If I refuse to follow His instructions, what must my motive be?
Jesus said, “He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathers not with Me scatters abroad.” Having heard the Gospel from the Lord Himself, I either repent and follow Him or I resist Him. There’s no neutral ground. Passivity here is passive resistance.
And that, I submit, is what accounts for “why some, and not others.” God indeed wills all to be saved, but to be saved means to be conformed to the Image of the Son, who is perfectly free. God gives me enough freedom of will to follow Him or to resist Him, and within His broader Will is that I should have that freedom even if I use it to go against what He wills in the narrower sense. I either “lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me” (Phil. 3:12) or I lose it.
I think this conclusion is thoroughly supported by Holy Scripture, as well as the Holy Tradition, and that it is also logically better than simply stopping short of drawing an otherwise necessary conclusion.
Do you agree?
Anastasia, in your reply, you attributed the difference in salvation to the one who "prayed, fasted, studied the Scriptures, kept alert, made amends to whoever you had offended, struggled to obey God in all things." May God permit us never to boast in our own works, but to boast in the Lord.
The tax collectors and the prostitutes enter the kingdom of heaven before the self-righteous Pharisee. The man praying, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner" goes home justified before God, while the man with all the good works fasting and praying (works you cited as contributing to salvation) did not go home justified. Faith trusts itself solely to God's mercy and goodness; it does not seek to cover itself with the spotted rags of our own works. In the original post you said "God accepts us on the basis of our faith precisely because we come to Him bereft of any worthy works." Why have you now made salvation depend on fasting and praying and so forth? Those who know their own sinfulness are faster to fly to God's mercy. Those who think they can make it on their own are in danger of being lost. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Anastasia, previous reply: Well, I have to admit, it never occurred to me that if a human being is condemned to hell forever, there might not be any cause. ???
** I probably relied too much on context to show you the "cause" which I was discussing: the parable of the sower does not discuss the "cause" of the ground being cleared; it's already cleared when the parable starts. If you check the context of our previous discussion, I'm hoping that will be clear to you. Your comment there (just quoted in this reply) was mind-boggling to me -- to say the very, very least. Was everything else I've ever said forgotten that easily?
I have said from the beginning and am still saying:
1. God has done everything needful for salvation for everyone: he sent Christ, living for us and with us, dying for us and drawing us, rising for us and ahead of us. If any is saved, it is of God. When we see what God has done, faith is formed by the simple fact of recognizing God's goodness and trustworthiness. New life, eternal life, consists in this true knowledge of God.
2. No one comes to God on his own, without being drawn. As Christ is lifted up, he draws all to himself.
3. Some are still lost. If any is lost, it is of someone other than God. Why don't I identify the "someone else" as one particular person? Because according to the Bible there are multiple causes. In the parable of the sower there are a couple of causes named; elsewhere the Bible names temptations causing people to fall, and people being led astray by other people (some of whom would have been better off with a millstone tied around their necks).
4. Beyond what Scripture says, I ask God to make me unwilling to go there. The apostolic church that we both confess must hold to the apostolic teachings and the faith once given. So if the Scripture does not say our salvation is attributable to prayer and fasting and other good works, then let us pray to God that neither will we.
Somewhere you must wonder: do Lutherans have a place for good works? And of course we do: it is the natural result of God's life in us, the mature fruit of the seed. But you can't get fruit before the seed has grown. It is God that plants the seed and waters it and makes it grow.
Anastasia, you had originally said in your post: "God accepts us on the basis of our faith precisely because we come to Him bereft of any worthy works." On this, at least, we can agree.
I have no idea whether you have any clearer idea of Lutheran theology; from your previous reply, I would suppose that I have not made anything any clearer at all. I see just as many misunderstandings about how Lutherans proclaim Christ now as I did at the very outset. I must attribute this to my inability and inexperience as a teacher, and my lack of knowledge of how to overcome the communication barriers between us. Perhaps some day you will find a more capable or systematic person who can do a better job of explaining our vision of Christ's goodness and trustworthiness.
Please excuse me for not replying further on this thread, as prolonging it does not seem to have given any benefit.
Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Dear Anne,
Yes, certainly I’ll excuse you if you don’t care to continue this thread, although I do think it has produced a benefit. I think I do have a clearer idea of Lutheran theology.
Yes, I stand by the statement in the original post that “God accepts us on the basis of our faith precisely because we come to Him bereft of any worthy works.” I stand by the rest of the post as well, with the correction you made: that Lutherans do not think of God as any sort of a monster.
And I accept (and think I understand) what you say, here condensed:
1. God has done everything needful for salvation for everyone.
2. No one comes to God on his own, without being drawn.
3. Some are still lost. If any is lost, it is of someone other than God. Why don't I identify the "someone else" as one particular person? Because according to the Bible there are multiple causes.
4. Beyond what Scripture says, I ask God to make me unwilling to go there.
The trouble, for me, is (as I said in the original post) that your #1 doesn’t seem consistent with what else you say. You say that in the Parable of the Sower, the ground is “already cleared when the parable starts.” Lutheran theology also insists, unless I’m mistaken, that a person cannot do a single thing to prepare himself for salvation. That only leaves God as the One who could possibly have prepared the ground. Yet some of it is still unprepared, is rocky or weedy or uncultivated.
I know, you don’t want to say how that comes to be, don’t want to conclude it was God Who didn’t prepare all the soil, because you believe that’s going beyond what Scripture says. I think I’ve got that.
But I see the misunderstanding exists on both sides, so please allow me to try to clear up an important point I appear to have muddled.
I specified in my hypothetical example (speaking of context) that you and I had both been physically present when Jesus preached that Parable, had both heard it from His own lips. I did that precisely to rule out any question of doing things “on our own” or apart from Christ. If we both heard Him preach with our own ears, then the Seed had been scattered into both of our hearts, had it not? He didn't sow it in one heart and omit to sow it in another; we're agreed on that.
And in response to having heard this Parable taught, I said, you got out your spade and hoe and rake and got busy making your heart a place where that sown Seed could germinate and grow and bear fruit. I say that’s what repentance is. That’s what faith is. That’s how Grace works in us.
In the same example, I had me failing to do anything, in spite of having heard the Lord urge me to. And that passivity, once I have heard the Gospel from the Word Himself, is tantamount to resistance. (Resistance to the Word is what you said condemns us, and I agree.)
In fact, I submit that this is the point of the Parable, the whole reason Jesus is telling it. He’s saying, “Get up and get busy! I here scatter My seed; cultivate the ground where it has fallen. I bring you heavenly riches; invest the coin I now give you. The Kingdom of Heaven is here, so repent!” And some people, having heard this Good News, respond, obey, and some who also have heard it, don’t bother, and those latter are lost.
Yes, doing good things is natural to the new man in Christ. But (because that seed at first is fragile in us and the habits of the old man persist) doing them still takes a great deal of effort, a struggle, plus courage and love and trust. Faith’s works do not just flow out of us effortlessly. It isn’t as though all we had to do is sit around waiting for them to blossom in us. It isn’t easy to let God do His work in us and it isn’t a passive effort. Every time we are passive, we shall find we have reverted to the default position, and the default position is resistance.
Works done “on our own” or apart from Christ assuredly cannot save us, but (first of all) I have specified I’m not talking about that kind. I’m speaking of the works of faith. These are responses to the Word, are what we do with the gift, are faith in action, faith made visible, faith as it is in the real world (as opposed to imaginary faith, which is what it is if it exists only in our heads).
Secondly, the works of faith aren’t the cause of our salvation, either! The cause of our salvation, if we mean the why of it, (the reason for it) is God’s Will alone. The cause of our salvation, if we mean the what of it (the agent bringing it about) is God’s Grace alone. But the how of it, meaning the instrument through which God’s Grace works our salvation, is faith. “By grace,” yes, but “through faith.”
It would be fun to discuss how faith serves as the instrument through which Grace saves us, but that’s long enough to make for a whole other thread. Here, perhaps we can just say it most definitely isn’t by earning us what faithless works cannot, as if salvation were s deal instead of a gift. Rather, faith that works through love is more like a surgical instrument in the Healer’s hand.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion and I hope it has borne some fruit. Thank you!
bout sympatico with
doctrines of various schools of thought
of larger christian denominations
for me eastern orthodox
tho i am not familiar
with what variations might be
with various eastern orthodox groups
now tho if one acknowledged
some key points that i find
as suggested by the psychic edgar cayce...
well then whoopie indeed...
such as reincarnation as compatible with christian salvation
and that the greek of the new testament does not say damnation
is eternal suffering...
i might be checkin this blog
for more about soul condemnation...
Post a Comment