we can't do it
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
we can't do it
Arsenios
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Well, this isn't really a salvation thread, other than as it pertains to our Triune God and those concerns, but I think the best way to deal with this is Ephesians 2:8-10 Faith alone saves us, but a faith that saves is not alone. According Ephesians, we are His workmanship. A 'born-again' rendering of Christ of us, is necessary for works or they are not good works, they are yet works of sin by fear or arrogance and thus are reflected in Cain's rejected offering. Doing right isn't possible without being a new creation. AND it isn't possible hat new creation wouldn't do right.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Have you received the reward for those works, Jesus laughing at your calamity, then him forgiving you and coming to live in you?
Baptism by fire.
Arsenios
Well-known member
You are right - Not a salvation thread - But the 2:8 verse has definite articles before both Grace and Faith, and follow Eph 2:7
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come He might shew the exceeding riches of His Grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by THE Grace eg of/from Him] are ye saved through THE Faith [also of/from Him]; and that [being saved] not of yourselves: it is the Gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
So the question, since both Faith and Grace are definite, is this:
Which Grace and which Faith...?? And the 2:7 establishes, and 2:8 affirms, that the Gift of Salvation by Grace is from God, and the Faith through which it is given is from/through Jesus Christ.
The Greek simply ends 2:8 with: "Of God the Gift."
And we cannot be "HIS workmanship" IF we do NOT repent of our SELF-workmanship... Hence the need, the profound need, of our personal self-denial in repentance from self...
Faith alone does not save us, because then salvation by Faith would make US the determiners of our salvation, for we control our faith, and thereby the Gift would not be from God... Salvation is THROUGH the Faith of Christ into which we are entered by Baptism into Christ, and is by means of the Grace of God...
Cain was not doing the works, for he was not giving the first-fruits in sacrifice to God, but the surplus left-overs, making God an after-thought rather than placing God first in all things... But the works are derivative via the offering, and lack the primacy of the works of repentance and self-denial and humility that establish the soul of the person...
The first three words of Christ in His great call to discipleship are these: IF ANYone IS WILLING [or desiring], then followed by "after Me to be coming, let him first deny himself, then take up his own cross, and be following Me...
It is the word ANYone that contradicts your belief that ONLY a new creation CAN do right and deny himself, as Christ commands... Because the Scripture here tells us that ANYONE CAN, IF they are willing...
Newborns are babies in the Faith, not yet mature in the Faith, so of course they will, in their immaturity, do wrong...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
The historic and Apostolic Orthodox Church has been discipling Christians unto the Salvation of their souls for 2000 years now...
Arsenios
disciplining maybe
Lon
Well-known member
AMR has given me a comment/correction on this post that I'll pass along.
The discussion/correction that, indeed salvation is part of any triune discussion, and thus I'd welcome such discussion here and would embrace that he is correct, that such discussion is to be expressed in a Triune thread, more specifically, because it would pertain to the thread more often than not.AMR said:I am no fan of any form of reductionism, as in "mere" Christianity. I do not expect all believers to have a full grasp of the Trinity, but it is certainly within their grasp as the doctrine is relatively easy to state. For that matter, when rationalism enters the picture attempting to remove all mystery from the greatest mystery, all manner of error ensues.
The test given in the link covers the basics and they are thoroughly Biblical, not philosophical. The Trinity is an essential of the faith we hold dear. Deny it and one has no warrant to the claim to being a Christian. It is not debatable. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved (see Athanasian Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/athanasian.html).
From John 17:3 eternal life consists in the knowledge of God the Father and of the Son whom he has sent. Eternal life cannot be divided from salvation. No one knows the Father who does not know that from eternity the Father had an only-begotten Son.
There is no hope of salvation without knowledge of the only true God. The only true God is the Trinity. While the Athenians had knowledge of an "unknown God", they did not know that he was Triune. Who claims a king exists, but know nothing of his name, his nature, or anything about him?
If the Trinity is unknown, then the principal foundations of our faith and comfort are also unknown. If we don't know that the Father is God, we won't know that we are children of God. If we don't know that the Son is God, we won't be able to know the depths of God's love. If we don't know that the Spirit is God, we won't be able to give ourselves up to his direction.
There is no salvation where honor is not bestowed. No one who refuses to honor the Father can be saved. Yet, from John 5:22-23, the one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.
"Mere" Christianity? I'll have none of it.- AMR (linked for Trinity discussion and full context) of that discussion
Standing corrected/ expounded gratefully,
-Lon
Lon
Well-known member
"and this (Faith, Grace, Salvation) not of yourselves, in order that, no man can boast..." make the Grace of God, Salvation of God, and Faith that comes from God, certain and monergism.
:nono: Read it again. Don't disconnect verse 10 from chapter 2. "Without me, you can do nothing" from John 15:5 was no passing word play. Literally: Without Me, you-cannot-do-any-one-thing!
-not even breath Colossians 1:17 1 Corinthians 4:7 That means there is no works in verse 10, without verse 8&9
Some of your objection is noted and agreed, though we are talking about a Faith not our own as well. All of it, for the monergist and in agreement is "saved by God alone" but rather this turned phrase is "what is involved" of which Faith is given. It wasn't an attempt to explain all of Ephesians 2:8&9 IOW, but rather an attempt to show where works fits into the equation. Jesus told Nicodemus that he "MUST" be born again to see Heaven. That is a 'new-creation' discussion, a re-creation truth of necessity. There is no Ephesians 2:10 without Ephesians 2:8&9
I've heard a lot of theory on this. One compares the two: One a blood sacrifice necessary for contrition over sins, and the other as a gift offering, thus Cain's was unacceptable for sin crouched. Whatever the reason, we do know "if he did right" his offering would be acceptable.
It was a passing comment for the point of an unworthy offering in reference too to our righteousness being inadequate for any connection in keeping or obtaining salvation. Isaiah 64:6
No, it isn't saying that at all. It doesn't even mention "can do right." The EO,RC, and many Arminians, have wrongly perpetuated this error for a long time and I too used to read it exactly this way for a long time. I empathize with the error, but let me share with you, observations that corrected my thinking:
1) This was not to gentiles (couldn't have been). It was specifically and strictly applied to a) God's already chosen people: Jews and b) to certain Jews, already following Him as 'disciples',2) to become Christ's disciples further "...to His disciples..."
Reading this wrong generates an idea regarding freewill that is not to be applied to gentiles without proper interpretation done first. That is, while I believe all scripture is to relate and be applied to us, it is not to 'wrongly' be applied to us. We learn our lesson given and THEN rightly address it to our unique difference and circumstance. An uncritical misapplied application isn't cognitive, but reactionary and lemming mentality.
"Doing wrong" isn't the focus, rather 'doing right' is. ONLY a new creation can do a work in keeping with that nature. Isaiah 64:6 and Romans 3:23
indicate that there is no work acceptable. ONLY a new creation is capable of doing right.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Arsenios
Well-known member
BYZ –
πορευθεντες
Go ye forth:
μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη
Disciple ye all the nations...
βαπτιζοντες αυτους
baptizing them
εις το ονομα
into the Name:
του πατρος
of the Father
και του υιου
and of the Son
και του αγιου πνευματος
and of the Holy Spirit
Just doing what He said that we are to do...
Christianity did not die with Christ...
Nor with His 12 Apostles...
Nor at all...
It BEGAN with them in Him...
Arsenios
1 Corinthians 12:13-14 KJV -
Arsenios
Well-known member
Thoughtful response, Lon...
The bolded quote, however, does not say, monergistically, that we are unable to do any works... Indeed we can do both good and evil works because the Tree of which Adam ate was that of the knowledge of BOTH Good and evil... In this brief and fallen life, we are fully able to do both Good and evil works, and it is also fully true to say that we can do neither without Christ...
iow It is WE who DO the works - We are FULLY responsible for them, and the last judgement will not judge us on the basis of what Christ enabled us to do, but on what works we ourselves actually did or did not do within that enablement during our lifetime... It is we who have the power to act by God's giving us that power in this life of Good and evil in which we find ourselves engaged...
Perhaps part of the issue is the fact that there are two differing and very different kinds of work at play here:
1: The works of self denial, which come first unto maturity in the Faith...
and
2: The works of God in us, which come with maturity in the faith...
We are responsible for the first...
We are not responsible for the second...
For instance, we can confess to and repent from, say, gluttony, and this we are enjoined to do, and yet we in doing this are not ridding ourselves of gluttony, but only of the doing of it... At some point in time, [or not!] God will come and take it from us and give us a righteousness that is not tempted by gluttony any more... That is a work of God in us...
iow: We do the work of repenting from gluttony, and God saves us from the infirmity that leads us to it by healing in us that infirmity...
Even in cases of involuntary sins, the afflicted person can ask God to help overcome them, and God, in His Time, will do so as He deems appropriate...
In some cases, as in demonic possession, someone ELSE must intercede and ask FOR the one possessed or bound...
Well, the worshiping community, the Ekklesia, that recorded this passage and preserved it for us for 2000 years now, does not understand it as you do, but instead holds that when Christ said: "If ANYone is willing after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, then take up his own cross, and be following Me..." That He meant ANY, and that He did NOT mean "Any JEW, or any Christian Jew, and nobody else..." And indeed, Paul proves it by discipling the Gentiles, because ANYone, you, me, your brother's daughter-in-law, and Joe Bloe from Kokomo, IF they are WILLING, CAN deny self and take up their own cross and follow Christ...
If we follow the Ethopian eunuch of Queen Candace, we will seek one who KNOWS the meaning of the words of Holy Writ, and in the case of the NT writings, that is the Fathers and the faithful of the early Church... They are uniform in this understanding - There is NO restricting of discipleship to Jews by Christ in this passage, even though He was One Who was talking to other Jews...
The works of repentance are the right thing to do, and can be done by anyone, but the works of righteousness come from God through an illumined heart purified by repentance and Baptism and tears...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Thank you.
:nono: "'All' our works are as filthy rags..."
Romans 3:12
Responsible, yes. Capable, no. It is somewhat like wrongfully squatting on another's property: we were born there, but we are still wrong to live there. "But there is no other place to go" doesn't remove the infraction, nor does an inability-to-move remove the infraction. "Choice" isn't necessary for infraction to occur. NOTHING we ever do on that property will ever be right. Can't be.
This misses the ball. It is a Catholic/Orthodox construct concerning man as capable of good and evil, then trying to philosophically wade through the problematics that such a construct demands. It isn't helpful to me because I scripturally, reject it as a Protestant. It is important that I see man as totally depraved and you do not. Such supersedes us as doctrine from our chosen denominations and our adherence requires a disagreement.
For this, I'm going to have to rabbit-trail a second, but I think it is important: The EO/RC/ and other Orthodox churches are into a 'works' mentality because 1) they hold to Apostolic Succession, which necessarily must buy-in to the idea of the possibility of infallibility in man. While, I recognize special inspiration that disallowed fallibility in the Apostles while communicating, I do not believe it went further and was non-transferable. This is essential to our disagreement, because it explains it. There is a marked difference. While I believe in church authority, I do not and cannot believe in infallible church authority. It is precisely the same as parenting, in my mind and practice: I believe in parental authority. I do not believe in infallible parents OR parental authority. Thus, for the Protestant, total depravity applies equally to all men, from birth. It is ONLY a new creation that can produce works of righteousness for God 1) because he/she is no longer a legal and practicing offense to God, but forgiven, and 2) has been Divinely given a nature to please God.
I know they don't. They are wrong, but I know they don't. Such imperializes 'self' in attempt to legally implicate man in sin by complicity. That is incorrect, legally but damages scripture reading and understanding. IOW, a noble thought, but a wrong one AND one that imperializes man. We are guilty by birth, like illegal squatting with OR without our complicity. Such is a freewill consideration that is completely unnecessary and imho, completely wrong according to scriptures, that are more important to me, than the AS that doesn't exist. IOW, your presuppositions, or more importantly said, those of your denominational leaders, are at adverse odds with Protestants who embrace that man is incapable of pleasing God, according to scriptures.
For me, and this will seem harsh, but I have to express assessment: Orthodox churches are caught in superstition, because of this wrong hierarchy. It opens up a can of worms of faulty wives-tales/priest-tales perpetuating. We need to remove the faulty link from the equation, and that is finite fallible man, in faulty succession. There is no place else for sinful fallible man, than a succession of faulty thinking and decisions to go then both faulty and fallible perpetuated. Yes, God can preserve, but I believe the very mechanism He uses is His infallible word and His Spirit AGAINST faulty Apostolic Succession. Think of it this way: Both you and the RC (and many others including Coptics) are at odds. What 'cannot' be at odds is the very scriptures themselves AND the Spirit of God guiding man where one can no longer say to the other "know the Lord."
"If" you are God's, and indwelled by God, you do not need me or a priest. Can be used by? Yes. But you no longer 'need' another to tell you "know the Lord." Jeremiah 31:34 Hebrews 8:11
Again, we are off the beaten path, but it is important to give our contesting presuppositions to understand one another better. We are greatly at odds from foundational truths that aren't apparent readily, in a triune discussion nor as it salvation relates to it. It goes as deep as the Protestant movement and the separation between EO and the RC. It is beyond forum expressions in scope. I hope it meaningfully nods to that scale for our concerns and purposes here.
Again this is an appeal to (faulty) authority and AS. It assumes God won't allow His church to err BUT Revelation is a warning to churches that they CERTAINLY err. He has promised salvation, NOT infallibility this side of glory. Hopefully this is a meaningful comparison: The Orthodox and Coptic churches etc. believe God sanctifies churches whereas the Protestant believes God sanctifies individuals, and then unites them in a body (church). It is a disagreement over "Church" "Salvation" "Works" and "Sanctification."
Without reinventing the wheel, I'm Calvinistic/Protestant regarding works.
Again, this is a difference between appeals to AS authority and writings vs appeals to Scripture as to infallibility and authority. I have, and am responding with scriptures as authority/appeal to authority, and you are using AS as such. Such is a huge topic outside the scope of this thread and its concerns, but it certainly ties into our concerns here. In Him, -Lon
Arsenios
Well-known member
Well, the divide between us is indeed vast in terms of pre-suppositions... And the Orthodox [I cannot speak for Rome] do indeed see man, as recorded in Genesis, as having inherited the death of Adam as a consequence of his having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of BOTH GOOD AND EVIL...
Hence we are capable of knowing, and indeed do in fact, know both in this fallen life. You see this as "our construct", and we see it as our experienced reality. We do not close our eyes to the Good in man, nor do we close our eyes to the evil in him. We see both...
And in these terms, we see those who ONLY see evil in man, eg those who embrace only Total Depravity, as keeping one eye buried in the sand of human experience.
Christ did say, that fallen man, being evil, does good things for his own children, but that reborn man does good also for his enemies...
The reborn man ONLY embraces doing good alone, while the fallen man who is evil only does good for his own... This is our empirical experience, and it is witnessed abundantly in Scripture, including Paul writing about "those called to be Apostles, as being the most wretched of men, a spectacle..." etc...
So that the unregenerate man does good and evil, while the regenerate man does only good... This, at least, being the guiding feature of the difference in their lives.
Which empirical and Biblical and Patristic teaching all affirm that total depravity in unregenerate man is false...
So we have a great divide indeed...
Indeed...
Unavoidable...
Not sure why you desire to lump EO and RC into your conversation with me here - I do not lump you with the Lutherans, for instance... And as to works mentality, what ELSE CAN man do. Scripture clearly tells us that we will be judged, at the dread and las Judgement, according to our works, our deeds... "I was hungry and you fed Me... Or you did NOT feed Me..." And yet the 5 wise Virgins sent the 5 Foolish Virgins to the MARKET to purchase Oil... Which is purchased by giving food to the hungry, you see... And the Rich Young Man was sent to sell all that he had, and give to the poor, and therein have GREAT riches in Heaven..." These are all works of which we are capable, but unwilling, in the main, to do...
Yet the point of such works, which are ALL works of repentance from self, are the ACQUISITION OF GRACE... The Oil which did not fill the Lamps of the 5 Foolish Virgins... Such that they could not be lit to enter the Bridal Chamber, being devoid of Grace...
The problem you will find yourself mired in here is the fact that two of the Gospels and one of the Epistles were NOT written by the Apostles, but by members of the Church. So now you have to reconcile having non-Apostles as authors in the New Testament which you just said did not happen and was non-transferable... As to the last, Elisha and Elijah disagree with you - The mantle can be passed...
I believe that the Church is the Ground and the Pillar of Truth... You seem to be railing against RC Papal Authoritarianism...
But Paul wrote that we are to obey those who have the rule over us in the Church:
Heb 13:17
Obey
them that have the rule over you,
and submit yourselves:
for they watch for your souls,
Do you believe this passage? And if yes, to WHOM are you obedient? And in YOUR Church, exactly what is understood by the words: "THE RULE"? And who, exactly is it that will give account for your soul who HAS this RULE OVER you?
You believe in Church Authority without believing in Church Authority, just as you believe in Parental Authority without believing in Parental Authority?
The Orthodox Patristic Tradition does not embrace some "Church Authority", even though we treasure obedience... The Latins, you see, treasure their "authority"... We treasure our obedience, as Hebrews instructs, but according to knowledge, not authority...
There you have it...
Please give an example of what this looks like:
eg - Two men walk into a sporting [or other] event, one a new creation, the other not, and here is what each of them did... etc...
I would like to see, in your own practical terms, what the difference is between a work of righteousness and one that is not...
Arsenios
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
And this is the problem with both "sides" in addressing this topic, just as it always is with false binaries or dichotomies based on conceptual definitions and extrapolations from such presumptive error.
The most over-arching meanings for tov ("good") and ra'a ("evil") are functional and dys-/mal-/non-functional. Ra'a is the negation or privation of tov. The ancients didn't understand existence as coming into being, but as being given functionality.
Ra'a is subtraction (of function) by addition, much like a wrench tossed into a mechanism is the additon that subtracts functionality. "Evil" has no stand-alone existence of functionality. Ra'a is the lack or diminishing of function(ality), just as sin in Greek is a negation. Hamartia is from a- and -meros, with meros meaning share or part. Sin is a noun, and is the missing share or part. It's a "somethinglessness", not a "something".
Evil (ra'a) is not a "something", but is a "somethinglessness". A lack or void.
It's ra'a to employ false definitions and false conceptual understandings. It's dysfunction. It's "evil". And what's missing is God's righteousness (dikaiosune) and truth (aletheia). But that would require understanding the applicable definitions of those words that are not understood in English, either.
Evil isn't a "something"' just as sin isn't a "something". The verb hamartano (sin, for the action/s of sinning) is the bringing forth of one's own standard of character and conduct into action, representing a different standard than God's righteousness. Self-righteousness... which is UNrighteousness.
Neither Easterns, Latins, Protestants, nor Baptistics have represented the truth in all their attempts to do so. Nobody really knows what evil or sin are; just as no one really knows what faith and grace and hope and love (and many other things) are by applied definition. Just fallacious English concepts.
Sad and maddening.