Not to be hair-splitting: "Traditional view" means the view that is "passed down from the far past." "Popular view" means the view that is "most widely held and accepted."
Hmm… You’ve made a line of questioning I was going to follow difficult by saying that the moral code is learned as a young child. That makes it more difficult to explore the distinction between what is learned at an early age and what is innate. I’m searching a bit now for another avenue of exploration so bear with me. Do you ever remember feeling that something was right or wrong that was not part of your childhood moral education? Do you have a different point of view on a subject than most member of your family, for example? With regard to your last point, if the moral code is solely a learned thing, would there not be more of a spectrum of beliefs, and would there not be more of a spectrum across cultures? There is a spectrum of sorts, of course, but Christians believe that we are all imperfect in our ability to keep to the code or even to fully understand it. There are some key elements of a moral code, however, that seem fairly consistent across cultures. Murder and incest are two. Let’s look at the flip side of morality. Do selfless kindness and charity make sense? A learned moral code would have a logical purpose, wouldn’t it? Let’s try this, if you were in a foreign city that you never planned to go back to, would you stop to help a little old lady across the street. Would you see that as the right thing to do? There is seemingly nothing to be gained by doing so. Nobody you know will know you have done it or not done it. What would be the motive behind feeling that that was the right thing to do? The heaven and hell motivators are external and not really interesting to me in this discussion. I’m more interested in looking at the internal sense of what is right and wrong and where it comes from.
The Bible waswritten by the disciples I believe. It was not in English, and it has been through one translation. What surprises me is how there is something called "New testament" or somethign like that. Meaning, you don't follow the original bible? Lil Pun, I'm the probably the least devout Muslim in the world, but I recommend that you look into Islam, and you'll find loads of clear cut answers. They're basically the same answers, because Islam is considered BY MUSLIMS to be Bible v2.0, the only difference is all the answers are well defined and aren't confusing. You don't have to go through Catholics, Baptists, etc... Islam is said by Muslims to be the original Bible + some improvements. I repeat, this is what Muslims believe. I don't mean to offend any religion, I'm just saying what I know.
1.No, your socialization process begins well before you can remember 2. Yes I thought going to church was a boring waste of time. Different cultures have some simliarities and some differences. First we are all human and the human experience does not vary that much, you need food, water, sex etc. And almost no culture develops in a vacumn. Moral codes provide for the ineraction of people. Ineraction is required to obtain the necessities of life. Just as one's guilt reactions are self punishment for moral code infractions, one can have self affirming reactions to good acts. Having a positive self image makes one healthier and happier. Ego is a powerful component of ones identity. Ones internal sense is a conditioned response formed by reward and punishment. I don't think you can say Heaven and hell are somehow apart from this conditioning, the concept proposes the ultimate in reward and punishment. Without this eternal threat I don't think church leaders could enforce their more illogical edicts like , the Coppernican theory of the solar system is heresy, or if you martyr yourself for the ayatollah you get to spend eternity with 72 virgins. The human mind is a complex machine my friend that has had hundreds of thousands of years to develop a learning process to support the primordial suvival instinct. Magician and skeptic The Amazing Randi has a saying to the effect that " anything sufficiently complex appears to be magic". For me that sorta takes the metaphysical out of the physical.
Correction...you martyr yourself for God, his Prophet, and the Religion. A side note: Both Christianit yand Islam concede that humans won't be able to stick to it, but obviosuly you should try to get it right 100%. Islam also says that even by judgement day, we won't understand everything in the Qura'an because humans are simply not that smart and never will be. What's the significance of this? It's significant when you tell yourself "Sure drinking is bad, but what if I don't drink a lot? I don't see why that's a problem!" Then you can sit and think about how much our capacity to think is, and remember that you simply won't understand SOME things, but it would be beneficial to do them "just in case".
GP: I think this would take a lot of work for us to really get into. You position is that a moral code is leaned at a very young age, even before we are aware we are learning it. Further, you say that this creates an ego state and a subconscious response that produces guilt, even in situations where there would seemingly be no cost to the individual by breaking the code. To address this I’m going to have to present evidence of people who grew up in amoral contexts and yet have a sense of what is right and wrong. But there is a further complication and that is the question of instinct. Animals have instincts that govern many of their behaviours, so could people be guided by a moral instinct? We could go back and forth on this one and never really get anywhere. I think a better approach would be to find a common frame of reference and work from there. With respect to spiritual and religious issues, however, I’m beginning to sense that we come from very different backgrounds, so that will make it harder. One of the reasons the heaven and hell, and reward and punishment motivators aren’t interesting to me is that they have never really been interesting to me. I did not grow up in a religious or spiritual home. My parents are nominally Christian but for most intents and purposes they are humanists. I wasn’t baptised as a child, not because my parents are Baptist, but because it wasn’t something they considered important, so just never had it done. The threat of hell was never discussed or even considered in our house. It also wasn’t a factor in my spiritual journey, and as a Christian it’s past its ability to be a motivator for me. For me spirituality is not at all about coerced behaviour. It is about the humble and open and wilful search for spiritual truth. This I see as a bit of a copout though, no offence intended. You are placing faith in logic and science to explain phenomenon they have not explained. You also seem to use this as a reason not question any further. How is this any different than the religious people who disregard science on the grounds that the Bible is all they need know? Seems to me that it’s the flip side of the same coin.
I can support to the idea of behavioral instinct. If behavioral patterns promote survival why wouldn't they develop the same as any other instinctual qualities. If I act in a socialbly acceptable manner am I not more likely to benefit. As a part of a group I can hunt more effectively, benefit from gathering activities, be cared for if injured or be able to select the fittest mate from a larger pool of choices? Placing ones faith in science and logic is not the same as placing ones faith in religion. The biggest cop-out of all is saying the nature of God is unknowable, God works in mysterious ways, although we may not understand it, God has a plan for us. That just seems to preempt any questioning. On the contrary I question everything. Unlike religion , all scientific theories are subject to revision. I said anything complex enough apperas to be magic but with enough observation and experimentation magic can be explained. I'm not saying science is all powerful all knowing, hell we don't even understand gravity yet much less the nature of phsical existence. So give me some empirical evidence of a supreme being, testable theories and repeatable results and I'll climb on board. As for our religious backgrounds , they are not that much different. My parents were nominal christians who took us to church 10-12 times a year. I resisted going very very early though. I think I arrived at my on conclusions in the 70's with a combination of Kurt Vonnegut and LSD. I had friends though who took LSD and had a very religiuos experience. Many became the Jesus Freaks of the day.
Sure, it’s a theory. It’s logical … to an extent. The problem with this line of reasoning for me was that breaks down when you pursue it in either direction. Y follows logically from X. Z follows logically from Y, etc. bringing us, in ideal circumstances, to a happy healthy adult human being. Why? What is the purpose of this being? And what brought X into existence? So we have a logical chain segment that is surrounded by things that cannot be explained by logic. This was for me a sign that perhaps there were more things than logic at play and that were worth considering. A further question was, if illogical phenomena exist before and after this chain, do they exist over the span of this chain also? If people say that without asking any questions or looking for answers then I would call that an equivalent cop-out. Like I said somewhere else, the book says “seek and you will find” not, “stick your head in the sand and do what someone else tells you to.” This does not stop people from claiming absolute truth only to have it disproved and replaced by another absolute truth. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Don’t mean to quibble, but I think this little slip is important. You can’t say that it will be explained (I’m assuming you mean explained logically) until it is explained. That places an unscientific faith in science. Well there is lots of scientific information that points to it. Intelligent design, the shear complexity of our physical world, the similarity of moral codes across cultures, the wide spread and historic belief in “higher powers.” But, in my experience it’s really an internal, personal journey. No one is going to “prove it to you.” It’s a journey that begins at the point where an individual becomes aware that logic does not explain the whole of our existence, and the person decides to explore what the other part of the whole is about. I could tell you about my journey, but neither I nor anyone else can tell you exactly what your journey will be like. I could offer opinions on things, but that’s all they would be, my beliefs. I think it’s good to talk to others about their experiences and beliefs, I should add, but the spiritual journey, IMO, is at its root a personal one between you and God. I think Phil Keaggy had an experience like that. I think there are different paths and different things that trigger the will to walk the path. I should also add that I think there are a lot of Christians who follow a certain behavioural code that has little or nothing to do with genuine spirituality, so try not to get too put off by the actions and attitudes of many who call themselves Christians or by the state of the Christian church in general. I would encourage you to talk to the people in whom you see something you relate to, though. They won’t be perfect either, nobody is, but I found that that was a good way to begin to explore what it was all about.
I've heard it said in here that perhaps God is our creation to explain the unexplained. But honestly, the unexplained doesn't interest me. It's the explained that interests me. It's my feelings of amazing love for my son...it's studying what science currently tells us about the processes of life...it's the complexity of the human eye...or the magic of DNA. All of those things, in my view, point to a Creator. Point to THE Creator. My personal relationship with God was not borne out of questions about the unexplained events of the universe.
So basically we are back to square one. Religion is a leap of faith you are either compelled to make or your not. Confroming to a society's norms for ethical behavior is not necessarily dependent on religion, or guarnateed by it either. I'm off to Oregon for a week to play Bandon Dunes and Pumpkin Ridge. You guys carry on without me.
Gene I might add one thing about moral codes, and I don't know if this has been said or not.... Morality isn't just for social interaction...its end is not utilitarian.... The same could be said with its use in the afterlife. My problem with many religious (stereotype) arguments comes from their understanding of salvation, as if to say if I do x,y,and z, I will be granted entrance into heaven. They view it more as a means to an end rather than a way of life. Morality, if taught correctly, changes a person into someone who better knows how to love correctly for God and with God. For instance, Christ sums up the Ten Commandments (a moral code) into two commandments by saying love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as you would yourself. The point is, the moral code is meant to make you love to the utmost of your nature, i.e. you love God by worshipping no dieties above him, etc. etc. The same goes for the commandments with respect to your neighbor. This process can take a lifetime but can also be captured in a day... but a Nietzschian reading of morality such as you give seems to fall short. If there is no transcendent soul, whats the point of living? To quote the crass band Rudementary Penii as covered by punk rawkers NOFX, "Whats the point of living when you're gonna die?" Quite simply, there is none...unless of course you believe in love, which inherently (through reason playing out its gracious melodrama) leads to Christianity or some other religion based on love. I tried to keep that succint.
Wow! Well said! It’s about grace, not works. God is all about love. From a state of love the works flow, but they are a consequence, not the cause of a relationship with God.
Well, but you can also say that one has to choose to recieve grace, because it is always there.... also, works are the physical signs we show that grace is working...I guess this is the main contention between Catholics and Lutherans over "faith alone", because faith, in and of itself, is an act, therefore one has to account for acts as well.... but there is always that unflappable mercy of God
"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 2020) "We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ," (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1821) "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." (Canon 9, Council of Trent) "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14, Council of Trent) __________________________________ "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rom. 11:6) "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3:20 ) "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 3:24 ) "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28 ) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3 ) "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5 ) "For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith," (Rom. 4:13 ) "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1 ) "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him," (Rom. 5:9) "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Rom. 10:9 ) "so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," (Gal. 3:14 ) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8)
In response Mr. Gootan, I suggest you don't just quote random Bible verses without elaborating. Your argument suffers because of that. Here's an attempt to dialogue. I would suggest that your quotes in no way take away from my argument, because my argument was not against faith, it was against faith alone. Did Paul Teach Justification by Faith ALONE? By Robert Sungenis Today, a common teaching exists among various Protestant denominations. It is the teaching that man is justified before God by faith alone. Protestants claim that man must simply believe that Christ has done all that is required for justification. Once man believes in Christ, he is saved forever. Consequently, Protestants understand good works merely as the fruit of one’s justified state, but not meritorious for justification. Likewise, bad works do not threaten one’s justified state. They have already been forgiven. The Catholic Church teaches that although faith is critically important, it only begins the process of justification, a process which also has a middle and an end. Justification is not a single event of faith alone, nor are works merely the fruit of such faith, but a process whereby the individual grows in justification by his faith and good works, a growth which can be r****ded, or even terminated, by faithlessness and bad works, ending in damnation. For both sides, let’s first clarify what we mean by the word justification. Basically, justification is the theological term used to denote the basis upon which man can go to heaven. It is the means by which a sinner is "justified" or "made right with God." Because God is perfect, transcendent and holy, but man is imperfect, mortal and sinful, there must be a "justifiable" reason why God would allow such a lowly creature to live with him forever. Because God must preserve his honor and holiness, he cannot just accept men into heaven without a good and justifiable reason for doing so, otherwise he would be compromising his own divine character. In order to justify our entrance into heaven, God must also remain just, honorable and holy (Rom. 3:26). "Faith" and "Alone" Next, let’s start this discussion by raising an important question: Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? If so, why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase "faith alone" anywhere in his New Testament writings? St. Paul used the word faith over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple it with the words "alone" or "only." What would have stopped him from such an important addition if the solitude of faith in regard to justification was at the forefront of his mind? A second reason that leads us to pose this critical question is that Paul used the word "alone" very frequently. Many of these instances appear right alongside the very contexts that contain teachings on faith and justification (Rm. 3:29; 4:12, 16, 23; Gal. 2:10; 3:2; 4:18; 5:13). Thus even while Paul was teaching about the nature of justification he was keenly aware of the word "alone" and its qualifying properties. Coupling it with "faith" would have made his point indisputable. Thirdly, although the Holy Spirit prohibited Paul from using the phrase "faith alone," He allowed St. James to make a clear and forceful point to the contrary, declaring that "man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" (Jam. 2:24). This negation comes at the precise point in the epistle where St. James questions whether faith, by itself, is sufficient for justification. We can only conclude that the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the equally important phrase "not by," clearly shows God was concerned that some would misinterpret Scripture’s stress on faith versus works to be equal to "faith alone." But didn’t St. Paul say faith was "apart from" works? If Paul did not intend to teach faith alone, then how do we explain his statement in Rom. 3:28, "that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law"? Could one not argue that the phrase "apart from" is very similar to the word "alone," and thus conclude that St. Paul really did teach that faith is alone in justification? To answer this, we must realize that "justified by faith alone" does not mean the same thing as "justified by faith apart from works of the law." Grammatically, the phrase "faith alone" means that faith is the ONLY instrument for justification, while the statement "faith apart from works of the law" merely means that "works of the law"—whatever St. Paul means by them—are the only thing that cannot be coupled with faith for justification. In other words, "faith alone" excludes everything from being added to faith, while "faith apart from works of the law" excludes only "works of the law" from being added to faith. This leaves open the possibility that perhaps something may be added to faith that is not considered "works of the law," or, that we could understand "faith" as being associated with other virtues that are not technically related to "works of the law." [See Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 7]. Hence, although we must give due justice to Paul’s dictum that faith must be apart from works of the law, this does not necessarily mean that faith is completely alone, especially from other virtues like love and obedience (Gal. 5:6; Rom. 1:5; 16:26). According to certain Scriptures, there is something about "works of law" which forces Paul to separate it from his concept of faith, yet dissimilar Scriptures allow, or even require, the addition of other virtuous works, which are not necessarily associated with works of the law, in order to procure justification. The Key: St. Paul’s Principle of "Obligation" To begin to uncover the true relationship between faith and works, we need to understand one of the most fundamental principles in the theology of Paul—the principle of legal obligation or debt. We see this principle established in that most famous of passages, Rom. 4:4: "To the one working, the wage is not reckoned according to grace but according to obligation" (NIV). To help us understand this principle, Paul uses the example of the employer who is obligated to pay his employee for his work. "Obligation" refers to a measured compensation which is legally owed by the employer to the employee. Since we understand work as something requiring the strenuous use of one’s faculties, the worker is someone who must be remunerated, in some manner, equal to his efforts. Commonly speaking, for an hour’s work, he must be paid an hour’s wage. Unless the employer wants to break the law, he is legally required to pay the worker what is due him. It does not matter whether the employer loves or hates, likes or dislikes, the employee. He is under legal obligation to pay him. Establishing this principle of legal obligation, Paul introduces the foundational rule regarding anyone who attempts to "work" his way to God. If the appeal to God is based on obligation, then the relationship between God and man becomes one in which the party who works (man) is legally obligating the party for whom the work is done (God) to pay for the work performed. Hence, in regard to justification, a man who approaches God expecting legal remuneration for his efforts thus puts God in a position of being "obligated" to deem him righteous and acceptable, worthy of living with God and being blessed by Him for eternity. Since in this situation God would be forced to owe a legal debt to the man who works, then the relationship is one based on law, i.e., a legal contract. If it is based on law, then it cannot be based on God’s personal benevolence, otherwise known as grace. This is precisely why Paul, in Rom. 3:28, says, "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." In the larger picture, "works of law" refers to "works done solely under legal contract" which demand payment for performance, regardless of whether or not the person doing the work believes in and loves his benefactor. Conversely, if man appeals to God’s graciousness, God would repay out of benevolence, but he is not legally obligated to do so. This is the primary distinction between grace and works. St. Paul reiterates this principle in Rom. 11:6 by saying: "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. [Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8, Cannon 1] Faith: The Beginning of Salvation In contrast to works performed in an attempt to obligate God, Paul speaks of justification by God’s grace through our faith (Rom. 3:22-24). God is a personal being who wants man to relate to him on a personal level. God is not an impersonal employer whom we go to for our spiritual paycheck but then forget about Him the rest of the day. Hence, because faith is intrinsically personal, it is the ideal word to describe one who recognizes God’s true identity; one who takes a sincere interest in God’s purposes and plans; one who trusts that God is good and looking out for everyone’s best interests (Rom. 4:18- 22; Heb. 11:1-40). Conversely, St. Paul often uses "works" or "works of law" as contractual terms connoting an impersonal employer/employee kind of relationship: someone who is under contract to do a job but has no interest in a personal relationship with his employer. He works for the sole purpose of remuneration but has no genuine regard for the goals and aspirations of his payer. He boasts of his accomplishments and expects to be paid handsomely for his work. Such attempts are an insult to God. To St. Paul, the Jews of his day were the perfect example of his thesis. The Jews continually forced their ceremonial works in God’s face and claimed that for such meticulous observance to the legal covenant God established with Abraham, God then owed them salvation, regardless of their life-style (Rom. 2-4). St. Paul’s answer to them is clear: "Who has ever given to God that God should repay him?" (Rom.11:35). But Do Works Justify? Although in many Scriptures Paul takes great pains to make the sharpest distinction possible between faith and works, in other Scriptures he creates the most intimate connection between faith and obedience to God’s law. This connection is so strong that it is quite biblical to state that without obedience to the law it is impossible to be justified and enter the kingdom of heaven. St. Paul says it himself in Rom. 2:13, "For it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law who will be justified [See Catholic Catechism, Para. 1963, and Council of Trent, Canon 20]. Some may find this conclusion contradictory, since we seem to be saying that law is both condemnatory and salvific. Nevertheless, once one understands the basis for Paul’s distinction between works done merely for legal remuneration as opposed to works performed under the auspices of God’s grace, the apparent contradiction disappears [See Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 5]. To help understand the principle of works performed under grace, or what we may now introduce as "gracious merit," we can borrow from St. Paul’s analogy of the employer/employee relationship in Rom. 4:4. We have already learned that if the employee contracts with the employer to be paid for his work, this arrangement is formalized in a written agreement and is made binding by law, i.e., it is a legal contract. If, on the other hand, the employer asks the employee to do some personal work for him outside of the legal contract—work that is "not on company time" or is "off the clock," as it were—and promises to reward the employee, such an arrangement is not under a legal contract and thus the employer is not contractually obligated to pay the employee. Yet because of the employer’s personal integrity, and perhaps because of a personal relationship he has cultivated with the employee, he may gladly pay what he feels the extra work is worth even though he is not legally required to do so. The employer could very easily renege on his promise to pay for work performed "off the clock," yet because he is honest and just he will not stoop to such underhanded behavior. God’s relationship to man is very similar. Although man cannot put God in a position of being legally obligated to pay him for his work, God can reward man for his work outside of law. Because of his personal integrity, and because he has cultivated a personal relationship with the individual through faith, God will repay out of his graciousness. For God, who is fair, just and compassionate, graciously rewarding man’s good works is the proper thing to do. This principle of God’s dealing with man is stated no better than in Heb. 6:10, "God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him..." Once we commit ourselves to view our works before God from the proper perspective, we must conclude that Paul does not teach that works of law, understood in the proper sense, is always antithetical to justification. We must maintain that St. Paul is condemning justification by works only with respect to contractual obligation, that is, when one attempts to demand payment from God for his works, but who really doesn’t care about God personally. Outside the realm of contractual obligation, obedience to God’s laws, as expressed and practiced in virtue, fully cooperates with grace in justification. Romans 2:5-10: The Reward of Good Works is Eternal Life Let us observe how St. Paul views the distinction between works performed under grace as opposed to works performed under legal obligation. He elaborates on this distinction in the way he describes God’s blessing for good works and God’s judgment for bad works. One of the first expressions of Paul’s positive view of works in regard to salvation occurs in Rom. 2:6-8: ...of the righteous judgment of God, who will give to each man according to his works. On the one hand, to those who persist in good work, seeking glory, honor and incorruption, [he will give] eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. St. Paul is clear that God saves or condemns based on the works performed by the individual. Consequently, it is also true that "wrath and anger" refers to the opposite of eternal life, namely eternal damnation. This is the same context he uses in Rom. 6:23 saying, "for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." In saying this, let it be clear to the reader we are not saying St. Paul teaches in Rom. 2 that a man can "earn," (in the strict, legal sense of the word), the reward of eternal life. To reiterate, Rom. 4:4 makes it unquestionably clear that when one attempts to "earn" his salvation based on works he is obligating God to "pay" him with eternal life, which is anathema. Hence we must conclude that the works Paul requires in Rom. 2:5-10 are not those he considers as putting God in a position of obligation to pay the individual with eternal life. Rather, it is presumed that those who "persist in doing good" and who "seek glory, honor, and incorruption" are doing so under the advocacy of God’s grace and mercy. God’s grace is introduced just one verse prior in Romans 2:4 where Paul says: "Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and his forbearance and longsuffering, not realizing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" The divine qualities of "kindness," "forbearance," and "longsuffering" are virtues of God that flow from his grace (Eph. 2:7; Tit. 3:4; Rom. 11:22). If God were not exhibiting grace, his response would be to show no mercy to men and thus destroy them at the first sign of disobedience. Moreover, God is not obligated to "lead them to repentance," or tolerate their sin. It is God’s grace that gives men the opportunity to and leads them to repent and do good works. Since Paul speaks of "repentance" in Rom. 2:4, and follows with God giving "eternal life" to the ones who have repented and "persist in doing good," but "wrath and anger" to the ones who have not repented, all the elements of the New Testament gospel are present in this passage. In light of this, the good works of Romans 2:6-8, being done in the context of repentance from sin, are works which presuppose faith in God, as well as an acknowledgment of personal sin. One cannot repent to God and do good works (i.e., works that are done for the purpose of "honoring God and seeking immortality"), without truly believing in God. Hence, the works of Rom. 2:6-8, accompanied by faith and repentance, are NOT works done under the principle of debt or obligation that Paul repudiates in Rom. 4:4, but works done with a godly attitude and which seek recognition and reward from within God’s grace. If Paul lifts the doing of works for obtaining eternal life to such a height as he does in Rom. 2:6-10, what, then, can we conclude about Paul’s understanding of works in relation to justification? The conclusion must be that works are necessary for justification, and, in fact, are one of the principle determining factors in whether or not one obtains salvation. We say this with the proviso that Paul outrightly condemns works done from boasting with a view toward obligating God to pay the worker with salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5). The only way God can accept our works is through His grace, just as he accepts our faith through His grace. Works done under the auspices of God’s grace, that is, works done that do not demand payment from God but are rewarded only due to the kindness and mercy of God, are the works that Paul requires for salvation. These works must continue throughout our lives in order for us to be justified (Rom. 2:13; Jam. 2:1-26). Robert Sungenis, was a cradle Catholic who, after years away in which he received seminary training and was actively involved in Protestant teaching and radio ministries, returned to the Church of his childhood. His conversion story can be found in Surprised By Truth (ed., Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press, 1994). He is the Founder and President of Catholic Apologetics International P.O. Box 7146 Alexandria, VA, 22307, and can be reached at 703-765-7111 or over the Internet at www.catholicintl.com or cairome
Well, but you can also say that one has to choose to recieve grace, because it is always there.... I agree, (although the topic of choosing to seek God, choosing to receive salvation, and being chosen by God can be a tangled one indeed, and not one I have confidence I have a high level of understanding about). I do generally agree that one has to make a choice though. That is how it was in my case anyway. When I speak of works, though, I’m thinking of good deeds done to try to win the favour of God, or to earn salvation. I think we are agreeing that neither of us believe that this is not how salvation happens. ...also, works are the physical signs we show that grace is working... Agreed. I think this is another way of wording what I was trying to say above. I guess this is the main contention between Catholics and Lutherans over "faith alone", because faith, in and of itself, is an act, therefore one has to account for acts as well.... but there is always that unflappable mercy of God I'm not a Lutheran either so I'm not familiar with their position on this. Could you point me to a quick synopsis?
If we use God to explain the unexplainable yet God is unexplainable himself, how does that make sense? Why did man create something that is unexplainable to explain the unexplainable? Also, where did God come from? If he created everything we know today then who or what created him? I'm not trying to argue by any means, just trying to get some more information so I can see it from both sides.
Also, a person who was trying to argue with me told me this: As long as you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is your savior, you will be OK in your afterlife hence you will make it to heaven. Does that mean I can do whatever I choose for the rest of my life but as long as I believe in my heart then I will be let into heaven? If so, what is the purpose of believing and going to church, and praying, and so on and forth? If I have been told wrong please correct the person for telling me wrong. Also, where did the devil or idea of the devil come from?
