What does it take?

[mitchellmckain]

KomradRed and I have been having a discussion via personal messages, when I thought of something to say that was not a direct response to his question but related. And I thought that might be an opportunity to take the discussion out of personal messages to where everyone can read it.

To Komrad and to others I have put forward Romans 10:1-7 to say that a righteousness which is based on faith does NOT ask this question of what have I got to do to be saved, or equivalently how to judge who has done what it takes and who hasn't. To ask what you have to do in order to be saved is to look upon salvation as if it were wages for work done and that is opposed to the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

I reject a typical modern christian distortion of this basic message that salvation by work and salvation by the law only refers to good deeds and obedience to commandments and not to words and beliefs. I think this circumvention amounts to a rejection of Romans 10:1-7 to claim that they can tell you what you have to do to get to heaven and that they can judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. The result is that they remake christianity into a new legalistic religion which can put themselves back in control -- simply make the works by which you can earn your way into heaven a matter of words and belief. Not only is this saved by words and belief a new form of Gnosticism, but it is clearly a legalistic religion that is far worse Pharisaical Judaism ever was. Is it any surprise that atheists look on it with horror? To the people of this new legalistic religion, it does not matter whether you are good person or how you love and serve others, it only matters what you say and what you believe -- all that matters to them is that you surrender your mind to the dominion of their ideology. This is so obviously a creation of men as a tool of power and manipulation, it is no wonder that so many end up concluding that this is all that "God" is too.

Consider what happened when someone asked Jesus this question of what does it take:

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Many a monastic group has been inspired by this. But if you think that this means that salvation is only for monks and priests then I think you have misunderstood completely. I think the point is that there is no "enough". If you approach christianity with this attitude of seeking what work will earn your way into heaven then you do not understand, .....but.... if you insist on asking what does it take then you should be told how much more you can do, because that way perhaps in this effort to earn your way into heaven you will eventually come to a crisis where you will have to choose between a righteousness which is based on faith and turning away like the ruler in the passage above.

So what is this righteousness which is based on faith? It means doing the best that you can, not because it is good enough or because it will earn you anything but because you want to. Now I am not all that sure that it matters whether you are the atheist who says he does these things because they are worth it for their own sake, or you are the Christian says that he does these things because he loves God and so you seek to share in the work of God to comfort and serve those who are in need. To me these sound like different ways of saying EXACTLY the same thing. I think the whole point is to change your heart and to want to do what is good.

[Matt]

So, as long as I don't feel like my works are earning me anything I'm okay, but as soon as I feel like they're earning me something, I'm condemend?

As long as I recognize my depravity, my works are from faith and I've earned God's favor. But if I start to feel good about myself, my works are from law and I'm a damned sinner.

I better work on being more humble.

[mitchellmckain]

So, as long as I don't feel like my works are earning me anything I'm okay, but as soon as I feel like they're earning me something, I'm condemend?

As long as I recognize my depravity, my works are from faith and I've earned God's favor. But if I start to feel good about myself, my works are from law and I'm a damned sinner.

Absolutely NOT! The whole point of the OP is not to answer the question of "what it takes" but to explain that asking this question is missing the whole point. There is no, "if you do this then you are ok." There is no "earning of God's favor." You should feel good about yourself, but for the right reasons, because otherwise it will be a feeling built on straw that blows away under the tiniest bit of adversity.

Salvation is about what God does, not about what you do. You are not saved by doing the "right things". You are not saved by saying the "right words". You are not saved by believing the "correct dogmas" even if you call them "feelings" rather than beliefs. Salvation is the work of God. This does not mean that what you do, or say or believe does not matter. On the contrary, doing, saying and believing what is best are things that God would have you do, but these are fruits of salvation and not its cause.

Christians keep trying to legalize every bit of guidance that is offered to them. To make everying about "what it takes" to get what they want. I think this comes from a human habit of trying to manipulate people to get what they want, but when it comes to God and salvation this just will not work, because this salvation that God is trying to bring about is a change in our heart to desire what is good, and no amount of bargaining with God is going to get you around this. As soon as you start making up rules like you just did, and talking about who is saved and who is damned, then you are no longer walking in faith but trying to save yourself by a bunch of laws. And NO this doesn't mean you are damned but just that you are being "taken for a ride", duped, suckered into "paying a price" that is irrelevant.

I better work on being more humble.

I do not see how a Christian could do anything more Chrisitan than that.

Regardless, what I am saying most certainly is NOT about is people having to believe what I believe. If I am right, this is absolutely no guarantee that I have made the right choice or that I "have it made". Nor does it mean that if I am right and you do not agree, that you are therefore doomed to make the wrong choice or that you will have a more difficult time than I. How can this be? Well as I have said before, 95% of religion is language and the result is a kind of pluralism, where the choice I am talking about can be understood by different people in many different ways - but ultimately I think it is a choice between the challenges of life and the escape of death. For example, it seems to me that many atheists have rejected the ideas of God and religion because they have come to represent to them things opposed to life and goodness, and thus I do not think their rejection of these can be wrong for that reason, for what is more important is that they "choose life"!

[KomradRed]

Coming from a Catholic background and viewing the Protestant idea of "by faith alone", I can see how both sides of the justification camps have trouble accurately understanding each others ideas on "what it takes". Being raised Catholic, faith was always said to be important, but also works, however works that do not have the appropriate state of mind behind them were considered to be lesser, if not worthless, in comparison to good works that do. For example, I was taught that there is a difference from saving a puppy because its the right thing to do and saving a puppy because you want to sleep with the woman who owns the puppy. The first is clearly a good work, an action that was done for the sake of it being good, while the second, while its effects are positive, is ultimately ulterior. Similar to the idea of penance, doing a good work because it is good is what makes the good work a good work. Just doing altruistic things because you want some ulterior benefit really doesn't fit the bill, and I have always viewed as an expansion of Christ's teachings on those who wish to be renowned for being such awesome super people; they are already receiving their reward. However, considering the Catholic Church's history cough*indulgences*cough, I can see how good works can be used as a catchall for the idea of doing a set amount of things to get your ticket to salvation.

In contrast, I never really understood the idea of "by faith alone" as the Protestant sects believe. To me, being outside this Protestant culture or understanding, people who were "saved" by faith alone were basically saying "I believe in God, therefore I am saved." You can see how flimsy this sounds from my viewpoint. You can be a murder and criminal of notorious reputation, but if you embrace God then you are saved. It was only after talking with Protestants, like Mitch, that "by faith alone" really means that we are not saved by our own efforts, but purely through God himself. Protestant faith is submitting oneself to the teachings and guidance of God, because only through God can salvation be achieved. However, simply saying "I'm saved!" and expecting the train to the next stage of reality to pull on up is flawed as a faith without the actual desire and action to live how God/Jesus taught us is dead. So ultimately a person who accepts God and lives how God taught they should live is one who has faith.

Ultimately, it looks to me like both sides are basically saying the same things. By faith alone we are saved, but a faith without an active effort to practice what you preach is dead and faith + good works lead to a simple fact. Be a good, altruistic person not because of some ulterior motive, but because it is the right thing to. Do good for good's sake.

[mitchellmckain]

Ultimately, it looks to me like both sides are basically saying the same things. By faith alone we are saved, but a faith without an active effort to practice what you preach is dead and faith + good works lead to a simple fact. Be a good, altruistic person not because of some ulterior motive, but because it is the right thing to. Do good for good's sake.

Yep and that last statement is where not only Catholic and Protestant meet but the atheist also. For it is typical rhetoric of the atheist that shows that they think that the Christian only does good because of imaginary reward they think they will get out of it. Three groups all blasting each other with rhetoric that is ultimately saying the same thing -- on that particular issue anyway.

[mikedsjr]

So what is this righteousness which is based on faith? It means doing the best that you can, not because it is good enough or because it will earn you anything but because you want to. Now I am not all that sure that it matters whether you are the atheist who says he does these things because they are worth it for their own sake, or you are the Christian says that he does these things because he loves God and so you seek to share in the work of God to comfort and serve those who are in need. To me these sound like different ways of saying EXACTLY the same thing. I think the whole point is to change your heart and to want to do what is good.

I agreed with a lot you said. I clipped out this part, because it is not fully correct. It isn't because you want to. This is still a me-centered idea of modern Christianity. We do good things because God is good. We love because God is love. We act justly because God is just. We act merciful because God is merciful. We are to be holy because God is holy. We are not to do good because we feel like it is the christian thing to do. This is the idea that will always leave an empty feeling in a man and question their behavior. I know. Been there. I thought the same thing you did. Its not correct. The good the world does is different than the good that God does, because the world despises God and can do no good in God's eyes. Why? Because all they do is for themselves. HOWEVER! That doesn't mean that I can't work beside an atheist to build a poor person's home or feed the hungry. But that isn't the call of the church to do that. The Bible doesn't say to go feed the hungry everywhere. It isn't the role of the church. Everytime it spoken of in scripture it refers to a fellow believer, except in a few places. In those few places, it is a demonstration of the exact same thing Jesus did. He didn't turn people away who came, even for the wrong reasons, which a great majority did come for the wrong reason. But His mission was in teaching his disciples and carrying out the sacrifice on the cross and the resurrection. The mission of the church is to teach the word of God and to care for the people in the church, and not turn those away who come. Social gospel is wrong. Goodness for the sake of being good is wrong in God's eyes.

The church would be stronger if it stuck to its roots of the Bible.

[mikedsjr]

So, as long as I don't feel like my works are earning me anything I'm okay, but as soon as I feel like they're earning me something, I'm condemend?

As long as I recognize my depravity, my works are from faith and I've earned God's favor. But if I start to feel good about myself, my works are from law and I'm a damned sinner.

I better work on being more humble.

That is the exact response christians and "christians" will eventually feel who do good just for goodness sake.

[mikedsjr]

Coming from a Catholic background and viewing the Protestant idea of "by faith alone", I can see how both sides of the justification camps have trouble accurately understanding each others ideas on "what it takes". Being raised Catholic, faith was always said to be important, but also works, however works that do not have the appropriate state of mind behind them were considered to be lesser, if not worthless, in comparison to good works that do. For example, I was taught that there is a difference from saving a puppy because its the right thing to do and saving a puppy because you want to sleep with the woman who owns the puppy. The first is clearly a good work, an action that was done for the sake of it being good, while the second, while its effects are positive, is ultimately ulterior. Similar to the idea of penance, doing a good work because it is good is what makes the good work a good work. Just doing altruistic things because you want some ulterior benefit really doesn't fit the bill, and I have always viewed as an expansion of Christ's teachings on those who wish to be renowned for being such awesome super people; they are already receiving their reward. However, considering the Catholic Church's history cough*indulgences*cough, I can see how good works can be used as a catchall for the idea of doing a set amount of things to get your ticket to salvation.

In contrast, I never really understood the idea of "by faith alone" as the Protestant sects believe. To me, being outside this Protestant culture or understanding, people who were "saved" by faith alone were basically saying "I believe in God, therefore I am saved." You can see how flimsy this sounds from my viewpoint. You can be a murder and criminal of notorious reputation, but if you embrace God then you are saved. It was only after talking with Protestants, like Mitch, that "by faith alone" really means that we are not saved by our own efforts, but purely through God himself. Protestant faith is submitting oneself to the teachings and guidance of God, because only through God can salvation be achieved. However, simply saying "I'm saved!" and expecting the train to the next stage of reality to pull on up is flawed as a faith without the actual desire and action to live how God/Jesus taught us is dead. So ultimately a person who accepts God and lives how God taught they should live is one who has faith.

Ultimately, it looks to me like both sides are basically saying the same things. By faith alone we are saved, but a faith without an active effort to practice what you preach is dead and faith + good works lead to a simple fact. Be a good, altruistic person not because of some ulterior motive, but because it is the right thing to. Do good for good's sake.

But the problem with Catholicism is that it can't leave faith alone alone, or should i say baptism alone. If a person commits a mortal sin, they are damned to hell if they don't run back to the priest and follow their orders. And even Catholics are wishy washy on what is mortal sin. I know. I've listened to the Catholic radio. Completely a work based system. Faith alone doesn't mean Faith is without deeds. For a person truly born of God can not help but do the work of the Father because now the Holy Spirit is with him causing him to desire to be obedient to the Father. No one can be obedient to the Father without the Holy Spirit. No one. The evangelical church is filled with lost people claiming to be Christians because of pastors and "pastors" preaching social gospel or just no gospel at all. The church is doing a poor job of getting the gospel out. But God is in control still yet. And God will saved His elect through preaching of the gospel.

[KomradRed]

But the problem with Catholicism is that it can't leave faith alone alone, or should i say baptism alone. If a person commits a mortal sin, they are damned to hell if they don't run back to the priest and follow their orders. And even Catholics are wishy washy on what is mortal sin. I know. I've listened to the Catholic radio. Completely a work based system. Faith alone doesn't mean Faith is without deeds. For a person truly born of God can not help but do the work of the Father because now the Holy Spirit is with him causing him to desire to be obedient to the Father. No one can be obedient to the Father without the Holy Spirit. No one. The evangelical church is filled with lost people claiming to be Christians because of pastors and "pastors" preaching social gospel or just no gospel at all. The church is doing a poor job of getting the gospel out. But God is in control still yet. And God will saved His elect through preaching of the gospel.

Im sure if you ask a Catholic priest, any one will be more than happy to give you a concise list of mortal and venial sins. Hell, just bringing up wikipedia's entry on moral and venial sins gives us these conditions.

In Roman Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions at the same time:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offence (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context.
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

A venial sin meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. It does not concern a "grave matter",
2. It is not committed with full knowledge, or
3. It is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent.

Also Mike, saying you know all about this because you listened to a Catholic radio show is like me watching the History Channel marathon on the Battle of Stalingrad and coming away with the claim that I know everything about the Second World War.