Is it work or faith that matters in Christianity?

[Danah]

Peace be upon those who follow the right path.

I know some will say both do maters, but here is what I need to get a clarification for:

20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James 2:20-26


and here:

26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Romans 3: 26-28

Christian believes that if he accepts Jesus peace be upon him as his savior then he will enter the paradise, right?

Then what is the scale of work in this case? What if he really accepts him as his savior but did bad deeds? aren't those deeds considered as sins too?

[Supreme]

It really is subjective. My personal opinion is that 60% of it is faith and 40% of it is good deeds.

Good deeds are undeniably needed to enter the Kingdom of God. One thing I love about Jesus' parables is that they emphasise, besides other things, the need for good deeds. Jesus' parables are completely relevant and quotable in modern life, and perhaps the most famous one emphasising good deeds is the Good Samaritan, which broke boundaries and taboo in its time (Samaritans befriending and helping Jews? Unbelievable!) However, I will share you my favourite parable Jesus told emphasising good deeds, specifically forgiveness:

21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

Amen.

[mkh4JC]

Well, here is what the great Bible commentator Matthew Henry had to say about faith vs. works.:

'Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel. James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us. Paul had to do with those who depended on their merit of their works in the sight of God. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used as evidence. Those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men.'

Just as an aside, here is what Peter said in his epistle concerning coming to an understanding of what is meant in Paul's epistles:

'And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.'

II Peter 3: 16-17.

[Grace Seeker]

This is a very deep issue. While simple at its core, sometimes people become confused because the terminology and concepts used to discuss this idea in the Bible are either foreign to them or used differently than they are themselves used to using those terms in daily life. So, let me introduce a few of the necessary terms to you and if you believe that you have properly grasped them, then I'll gladly continue on.


The first (and most important) is the term "believe". You'll notice that I used it (intentionally) in the previous sentence. In that context to say "believe" -- "if you believe that you have properly grasped" -- there are many different synonyms that one might chose as alternate words to express the idea I was trying to communicate: "feel" or "think" for instance. And yet, this shows how slippery words are for most people would agree that feeling and thinking are not the same activity. So, we must be careful when talking about the terms "believe" or "belief" as used in the scriptures or in Christian theology to be sure that we have the correct concept in mind. In biblical language the concept of belief has nothing to do with either thoughts of nor feelings, but with trust. To believe in something is to put your faith or trust in it. So, when a Christian makes a statement that he/she believes in Jesus. They are not saying that they think certain propositional truths with regard to Jesus -- they no doubt also do think these things, but that is not what the term "belief" is in refernce to -- but that they have placed their trust in Jesus. For example: a child is on the edge of a pool about to learn to swim for the first time and the parent stands there in the water telling the child to jump. Whether the child jumps or not is a matter of whether the child's trust is greater than his/her fear.

"Law" -- The word "law" is used in two very different ways in scripture. There is "the Law", which is the set of rules and regulations that are presented in the scripture as being given to the nation of Israel as part of the covenant relationship that God established with them through Moses. The Jews would call this Torah. Some people think of just the 10 Commandments, but it is actually a little more than just them, but the whole body of work of God's expectations. This understanding leads to the second way understanding for the term "law" as used in the Bible. "The Law" is really what God expects of God's people. It is more than just the individual regulations, but it is the whole character of the person. This is not spelled out in any set of stone tablets, but is understood to be implicity written on people's hearts. Thus, the prophets often chastize the leaders of Israel for keeping the details of the Law but neglecting the very essence of it.

Another important word is "sin". Most people conceive of sin as a particular act. Yet, while things like lying, cheatings, stealing are indeed sins, when the Bible talks about "sin" it is really talking about the underlying condition that leads people to make these choices. The scriptures talk about it as a "sin nature", something inside the individual that cause them to seek serving their own ends, rather than serving and submitting to God. Thus when the scriptures talk about the importance of overcoming sin, they really mean this predisposition that people have to focus on self rather than God. Here is one of the tricky things about that understanding, it is entirely possible that a person could never do a bad deed and only always do good deeds, but if done for the wrong reason (to serve self rather than God) then he/she would still be a "sinner" according to the Biblical construct.

Combining the two above understandings of "law" and "sin" it is possible for a person to never break the law (never lie, cheat, nor steal) and yet still be guilty of sin (putting themselves first rather than God).

Which leads us to our next word "righteousness". This is the concept of a person who is living in a right (proper, correct, appropriate) relationship with God. Again, the nature of their relationship with God -- is it one that trust in God or in one's self, is it one that seeks to serve and submit to God or to serve and exalt one's self -- is more important than the individual acts. Though of course it is hard to image one who has a right relationship with God acting in an unrighteous manner, at least not intentionally.

And that then gives us our final three words to talk about: "atonement" and "justification" and "regeneration":

"Atonement" -- This carries with it the idea that God deserves to be exalted and when we exalt ourselves and not God we are in essence robbing God. As a result of robbing God of his due glory we owe a debt to God that we are unable to pay, because no amount of good deeds even perfect righteous living in which we continually put God first in our lives can cancel the fact that we have robbed God in the past. Both the sinful nature and the individual sins build a wall between us and God, one that was not meant to be there. The cancelling out of that debt by another and the tearing down of that wall of seperation so that God and humans can be in communion and fellowship with each other once again is to make atonement for us.

"Justification" -- Even God does not reverse the arrow of time. (Though I suppose he could for he lives outside of it, but that is for another thread.) Rather, in providing for atonement, God has cancelled the weight of our past and no longer counts them in evaluating whether a person is a Sinner. It is as if a judge were dismissing all of the evidence against us and declaring us just (or "righteous") in his sight. I like to imagine it as if God were saying, "You're alright with me."

"Regeneration" -- This is the concept that people can have a new beginning. With the past no longer held against them, the only real problem that must be addressed is the "Sin Nature". The Bible presents the idea that if a person were to "believe" in Jesus, i.e. trust in Jesus, that he/she can have a new beginning that includes a new nature. This new nature includes the removal of the old sin nature (focused on self) and the restoration of a new nature such as God intended us all to have, one that trusts (i.e. "believes") in God and seeks to serve and submit one's self to him exclusively.



Danah, you asked some good questions. They mirror very much discussions that have engage some of the most noted theologians through the centuries. So, let me be sure you understand what I mean with the above terms -- for I might use them in different ways than you are accustomed to thinking of them -- and then we can continue with the issues you want to address.

Peace.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Pygoscelis]

Both Christianity and Islam have this fault (to me its a fault, to you it may be a virtue) of having belief rewarded and disbelief pusnished. A good non-christian goes to hell in christian dogma and a bad man who repents and accepts Jesus at the last moment's sins are forgiven and he goes to heaven. Ghandi the heathen in hell, repentant Hitler (if he repented as the bombs fell on Germany) in heaven.

I think that this property, as distasteful as it is to me personally, imparts a survival edge over religions that lack it. The concept of Hell only works as much as people believe it exists so its useless in winning converts, but its great at keeping the flock from straying.

[mkh4JC]

Both Christianity and Islam have this fault (to me its a fault, to you it may be a virtue) of having belief rewarded and disbelief pusnished. A good non-christian goes to hell in christian dogma and a bad man who repents and accepts Jesus at the last moment's sins are forgiven and he goes to heaven. Ghandi the heathen in hell, repentant Hitler (if he repented as the bombs fell on Germany) in heaven.

Salvation doesn't work like that in all cases. You can literally get to the point where God will give up on you, where he will turn you over to the mind of a reprobate, where you will be at a point where you don't want anything to do with God or holiness, calling good evil and evil good, where you are in love with your sins. That's the mind of a reprobate.

Now, that doesn't mean that God in his sovereignty can't choose to save someone on their death bed, because he can and does do that. I've heard of many such times, testimonies from Christians. One time a gentlemen shared on Christian television that he and another brother were witnessing to an elderly man at his home and the pair were leaving unsuccessfully but God impressed upon him to return and see if he really didn't want to accept Christ as savior. They did, he accepted, and died over night.

Another time I heard of a September 11 story whereby a flight attendant was being witnessed to by a gentlemen and she said something to the effect of that many people as of late were witnessing to her about Christ and God led her to him and she accepted Christ and died in one of the planes.

So if someone does accept Christ just before they die, it's just God exercising his sovereignty.

[Danah]

Greetings,

Thanks for everyone posted here.

Well, here is what the great Bible commentator Matthew Henry had to say about faith vs. works.:

'Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel. James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us. Paul had to do with those who depended on their merit of their works in the sight of God. James had to do with those who cried up faith, but would not allow works to be used as evidence. Those who cry up the gospel so as to set aside the law, and those who cry up the law so as to set aside the gospel, are both in the wrong. The justification of which Paul speaks is different from that spoken of by James; the one speaks of our persons being justified before God, the other speaks of our faith being justified before men.'

Exactly, this is what made me confused, why each one talked about a certain side and somehow nullify the other?

Danah, you asked some good questions. They mirror very much discussions that have engage some of the most noted theologians through the centuries. So, let me be sure you understand what I mean with the above terms -- for I might use them in different ways than you are accustomed to thinking of them -- and then we can continue with the issues you want to address.

Peace.

I think I got what you mean, so continue please

Both Christianity and Islam have this fault (to me its a fault, to you it may be a virtue) of having belief rewarded and disbelief pusnished. A good non-christian goes to hell in christian dogma and a bad man who repents and accepts Jesus at the last moment's sins are forgiven and he goes to heaven. Ghandi the heathen in hell, repentant Hitler (if he repented as the bombs fell on Germany) in heaven.

I think that this property, as distasteful as it is to me personally, imparts a survival edge over religions that lack it. The concept of Hell only works as much as people believe it exists so its useless in winning converts, but its great at keeping the flock from straying.

I don't really wanna elaborate in this matter about Islam to avoid going off topic since we are talking about Christianity but I couldn't help but clarify this matter to you even if briefly. In Islam the belief has to be attached with the good work, . The Qur’an repeats many times this Ayah, [those who believe and perform righteous actions], so you can't be a believer while doing bad deeds whether to yourself, to your God or even to people

[Pygoscelis]

The Qur’an repeats many times this Ayah, [those who believe and perform righteous actions], so you can't be a believer while doing bad deeds whether to yourself, to your God or even to people

No, but should you lack faith in Allah you can do all the good deeds imaginable and it won't get you anywhere.

[Danah]

^ they are two faces for the same coin, nothing can work without another.

Those who do good things in their life without having faith in Allah are rewarded in this life not in the hereafter. So its fair for them that their work don't go in vain


Now back to the topic please, if you like to talk more about the issue regarding Islam you can post a new thread

[Supreme]

I don't really wanna elaborate in this matter about Islam to avoid going off topic since we are talking about Christianity but I couldn't help but clarify this matter to you even if briefly. In Islam the belief has to be attached with the good work, . The Qur’an repeats many times this Ayah, [those who believe and perform righteous actions], so you can't be a believer while doing bad deeds whether to yourself, to your God or even to people

Amen. I believe there's Protestant theology somewhere that states that good acts are indeed sub conscious acts of faith. I can't find the exact article but a quick search on Wikipedia brings up a related page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation

James 2:14,17: "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? ...faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

[Woodrow]

Just putting this up here in the interest of fairness. It should be noted the answers given will be the views of our Christian members only and may or may not reflect the views of most Christians.



I do not want to derail this thread but I think it should be pointed out that on this issue Christians do differ. The differences are most noticed when you look at the views of the 3 most noticeable groups.

Catholics/Orthodox--Tend to emphasize works over faith

Protestants--tend to have a balanced view putting both as equally important

Fundamentalist--Tend to stress Faith alone

Most of the Christian members here seem to be Protestant. The views presented may not be the views of all Christians or even the majority.

[Grace Seeker]

Just putting this up here in the interest of fairness. It should be noted the answers given will be the views of our Christian members only and may or may not reflect the views of most Christians.



I do not want to derail this thread but I think it should be pointed out that on this issue Christians do differ. The differences are most noticed when you look at the views of the 3 most noticeable groups.

Catholics/Orthodox--Tend to emphasize works over faith

Protestants--tend to have a balanced view putting both as equally important

Fundamentalist--Tend to stress Faith alone

Most of the Christian members here seem to be Protestant. The views presented may not be the views of all Christians or even the majority.

And as a Protestant pastor, I would affirm what Woodrow has stated that there are some significant differences in the way that this question might be addressed among different groups of Christians. Though, to my knowledge, all would say that both faith and works are important, it is only the relative value attached to them with regard to salvation that changes.

Woodrow, given those differences, maybe it would be possible to look into being able to more specifically allow Christians to indicate more specifically in their "Way of Life" whether they belong to a Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or other form of Christian community?

[Woodrow]

And as a Protestant pastor, I would affirm what Woodrow has stated that there are some significant differences in the way that this question might be addressed among different groups of Christians. Though, to my knowledge, all would say that both faith and works are important, it is only the relative value attached to them with regard to salvation that changes.

Woodrow, given those differences, maybe it would be possible to look into being able to more specifically allow Christians to indicate more specifically in their "Way of Life" whether they belong to a Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or other form of Christian community?

Peace Gene,

Very good point. I can see benefit in that and why some if not most Christians would like to be identified by their choice of denomination. It would also help us reverts in debating with Christians as we would most likely have some concept of what the person believes and avoid debating a point the person doesn't believe to begin with.

From a logistic point it would be impossible to list all of the Non-mainstream denominations. But possibly separate groupings could be done such as:

Catholic/Orthodox
Protestant
Anglican
Fundamentalist
Other

I will think about the logistics involved and if it looks do-able I will discuss it with the other Admins and mods and see if it is needed, desirable or helpful

[Grace Seeker]

From a logistic point it would be impossible to list all of the Non-mainstream denominations.

What?! You don't want to make room for 30,000+ different individual denominations?

I might suggest the following:
Catholic
Orthodox/Eastern Rites
Anglican/Protestant
Pentecostal
Restorationist
Other


While, there are some serious differences between say a mainline Methodist and an independent Christian or a Southern Baptist, you can get religious fundamentalists and religious liberals in any group. So, I don't know that use of "fundamentalist" is going to convery what you want it to unless you divide the Protestant grouping into mainline and fundamentalist and let people self-define which category described them better.

[Supreme]

Peace Gene,

Very good point. I can see benefit in that and why some if not most Christians would like to be identified by their choice of denomination. It would also help us reverts in debating with Christians as we would most likely have some concept of what the person believes and avoid debating a point the person doesn't believe to begin with.

From a logistic point it would be impossible to list all of the Non-mainstream denominations. But possibly separate groupings could be done such as:

Catholic/Orthodox
Protestant
Anglican
Fundamentalist
Other

I will think about the logistics involved and if it looks do-able I will discuss it with the other Admins and mods and see if it is needed, desirable or helpful

That'd be brilliant.

My suggestions:

Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Protestant
Anglican
Baptist
Non Trinitarian
Non Denominational

What?! You don't want to make room for 30,000+ different individual denominations?

I'm sure there's a joke about Protestantism in there for the more comedic members.

[Woodrow]

What?! You don't want to make room for 30,000+ different individual denominations?

I might suggest the following:
Catholic
Orthodox/Eastern Rites
Anglican/Protestant
Pentecostal
Restorationist
Other


While, there are some serious differences between say a mainline Methodist and an independent Christian or a Southern Baptist, you can get religious fundamentalists and religious liberals in any group. So, I don't know that use of "fundamentalist" is going to convery what you want it to unless you divide the Protestant grouping into mainline and fundamentalist and let people self-define which category described them better.

That will work. Like I said I'll try to see what is involved and bring it up with the other admins and mods.

[Danah]

Now back to the topic,

Can someone tell me which denominations believe that faith only is needed and which believe that work only is needed, and which do believe in both?

[Grace Seeker]

None teach "works alone". And even those that teach "faith alone", don't mean by that idea that works are not important. It all has to do with the word "needed". Needed for what?

It is the reformed group of protestant churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist and others) that teach a collection of doctrines sometimes grouped together and called the Five Solas (from the Latin phrase that introduces each concept):

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")


People, even members of those denominations, often get confused and think that sola fide and sola gratia are the same thing. They are not. And that is why the question, "Needed for what?", is so important.


When it comes to salvation, it is neither faith only nor work only that is taught by any Christian denomination. What saves us is not what we do nor what we believe, but God's will experienced as an act of grace or mercy. Christians, of all stripes, do not believe that they are ever in their natural state worthy of being saved. Nor do we believe that we could ever do or believe something that would make God owe us salvation. So, if you are talking about what is needed to get into heaven, faith or works? The answer is actually neither will do you any good. Because, unless God is willing to grant you heaven as a gift, you can believe what you want and do all of the good works possible, and God still does not have to let you in. Ultimately we get in by grace alone.

One of the main biblical texts for this understanding is Ephesians 2:8-9 -- "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Now, as I said, some people get confused and think that this means that we are saved through faith alone and not by works. But note, that is NOT what is actually said. Rather we are save by grace. And though we are not saved by works, the next sentence makes it clear just how important they are as well: "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Ephesians 2:10). So, all Christians understand that it is important to do good works, it is just that works alone do not save us. Rather, the only thing that saves us is God's grace. And how do we experience God's grace? Well, until we are actually in heaven it is just the hope of something longed for. Still, because we trust not in our own work, but in the work that we understand that Christ has done, we are certain of it even as it remains unseen. And this just happens to be the way that the Bible speaks of faith: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). And I expect that this is why Paul spoke of being saved by grace through faith. If one didn't trust in Jesus, one might still be saved by God's grace, but one would not have knowledge of it unless they had faith that they could trust in what God did before we actually had the experience of it.

So, what do people mean when they speak of Sola fide ("by faith alone")? Sola fide is the teaching that justification (interpreted in Protestant theology as, "being declared right by God") is received by faith only, without any mixture of or need for good works. (Remember I said in my post on the last page that these were all important words to understanding this discussion -- you may want to look them up again.)

In Islamic tradition there is a tradition that on arriving in heaven one's works are weighed. And yet that same tradition says that no one can enter paradise based on their works, for always they are found wanting. In the end, it is Allah alone who decides and grants permission. That act of granting permission is what we mean by grace alone. But the fact that a Muslim can live confident that Allah is going to grant that grace is what we mean by "faith alone". You know that Allah is going to look at your works and decide that, even though they don't measure up to the point that Allah would have to declare you righteous -- because reality is that you will never be as righteous as Allah, that Allah is going to declare them acceptable (that declaration that Allah finds your life acceptable or righteous is what we mean by justification). That reason is not so much the content of your works (though of course they are righteous works), but the dedication of your heart to living a life of Islam, submission to Allah.

So, in a way very similar to Christian understanding, Muslims also receive grace (from Allah) through faith (your trust in the nature of Allah's final decision). And because you live by faith today trusting in the ultimate goodness and mercy of Allah, you also respond by submitting to Allah's will and do the works that he would ask of you, as if they will be good enough.

Now, Catholic Christians don't disagree with Protestants over the idea of grace alone, but they do think that justification is a result of more than just faith alone. And here Islam might be more like Catholic ideas than Protestant ideas. For Catholics would suggest that faith alone is not good enough to show that one really loves God. And God is not looking just for people who believe in him, but for people who are willing to trust AND obey. Particularly to obey his command to love -- love both of God and love of others. Catholics (and really most protestants too) say that this love is expressed in and by our works.

This is what the the author of the letter of James is talking about. He says that if a person doesn't have works, then he questions whether or not they really have faith. For faith without works isn't really faith at all. If we are saved by [God's] grace through faith, James says that this faith must be alive. (Paul also talks about the importance of having living faith, so this is really not a different teaching.) And he says that living faith is not something that you keep hidden inside by just thinking about God. (Remember I said that faith was not just an intellectual pursuit on the previous page.) Real faith must be put to action. And when it involves trusting God, it will mean trusting him to tell us how to live as well. That means we need to pay attention to the commands of Christ, and Jesus made it plain that he was giving us a new commandment: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). So, all that James is doing in his letter is holding those who say that they believe in Jesus, that God is going to say that Jesus' work (not ours) is sufficient to save us, had better be living like they really trust and believe in Jesus. And that means more than just lip service, but actually acting on that faith and to begin doing the things that Jesus said. Thus if we have faith, James expects to see the fruit of that faith. We are to love and show love -- feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick and visit the imprisoned.




Now, believe it or not, what I have written is just for starters (and why I was going to wait till next week to address your question). But I think I had better stop for the moment and see what I might have answered. What I've actually made more confusing. And what maybe I haven't addressed at all.

[Khaldun]

:sl:

Just to make things clear with regards to Islaam.

In Islaam there is a sect that believes that faith is only in the heart and thus if a person commits sins it will not effect their faith at all. So the faith of the angels and the faith of Pharao is the same in these peoples minds. This sect is called Murji'ah

This is in clear contradiction to the Qur'aan and the hadiths which state that faith fluctuates i.e it increases and decreases due to actions. This is why famous muslim scholars define faith as a statement on the tongue, firm beliefe in the heart and actions on the limbs. All these three aspects are very important and effect faith.

As for Grace seekers posts, in Islaam we are required to worship Allah and we are promised Paradise through it. But you are right in saying that it is not as a trade off, meaning even if you worshipped Allah 500 years non stop you could not come and say my 500 years of worship is the reason for my entry into Jannah.

It is only because of the Mercy and Grace by the all-Mighty that He accepts people into paradise.

[Danah]

Thanks Grace Seeker for your explanation,

So, all Christians understand that it is important to do good works, it is just that works alone do not save us. Rather, the only thing that saves us is God's grace

Well, they believe that good work is important, but what is their reason to do good work? morality?
If someone has no morality, then he can do whatever he want but still keep in his mind that his deeds has nothing to do with being saved if he is believing in Jesus as his savior.


And yeah, even in Islam our works don't weigh that much without Allah's mercy but they are important to complete our faith. As I said in one of my posts here in this thread:
The Qur’an repeats many many times this at the beginning of many verses in Quran, [those who believe and perform righteous actions], so you can't be a believer while doing bad deeds whether to yourself, to your God or even to people.

I don't know how far does Christianity stress on the work issue, but it is a very important requirement in Islam that need to be fulfilled.

Thus if we have faith, James expects to see the fruit of that faith. We are to love and show love -- feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless, care for the sick and visit the imprisoned.

So, its the work that come out as a result after having the faith, and if someone have no faith, then nothing will come out as good deeds.....this is what I got from the last quote. I don't know but James quote was very clear when he said "faith without work is dead" the above explanation can be taken for what Paul said since he stressed on faith in the first place, but as for James, its the totally opposite...correct me if I am wrong please.

[Grace Seeker]

Thanks Grace Seeker for your explanation,


Well, they believe that good work is important, but what is their reason to do good work?

Because God's love within us should compell us to good works.

If someone has no morality, then he can do whatever he want but still keep in his mind that his deeds has nothing to do with being saved if he is believing in Jesus as his savior.

He can, but all who come to saving faith in Christ by doing so have simultaneously entered into a trust relationship with Christ. They will want to become more and more like Christ in terms of how they live. As such, there is no room left for unfettered sin. If what a person does is to live for one's self, rather than for God, it shows that that individual has NOT put God first. If God is not first, then God is not that person's supreme allegiance. If not that person's supreme allegiance, then they have not killed the sin nature and are not truly trusting in Christ. Thus, they may use the words of faith, but they have not the acts of faith. One must let God judge the hearts of men (and women), but from all outward and observable signs, it would appear unlikely that they actually have true faith if they have no outward signs of an inward change of the heart toward God.

And yeah, even in Islam our works don't weigh that much without Allah's mercy but they are important to complete our faith. As I said in one of my posts here in this thread:
The Qur’an repeats many many times this at the beginning of many verses in Quran, [those who believe and perform righteous actions], so you can't be a believer while doing bad deeds whether to yourself, to your God or even to people.

I don't know how far does Christianity stress on the work issue, but it is a very important requirement in Islam that need to be fulfilled.

I'm sensing that while we may use different language -- I would not say fulfilled or complete our faith -- that we have the same expectations. For certainly one expects the fruit of good works from a person who truly has faith in what God has done in and through the life of Jesus.

So, its the work that come out as a result after having the faith, and if someone have no faith, then nothing will come out as good deeds.....this is what I got from the last quote. I don't know but James quote was very clear when he said "faith without work is dead" the above explanation can be taken for what Paul said since he stressed on faith in the first place, but as for James, its the totally opposite...correct me if I am wrong please.

I think you understand James correctly -- "faith, without works, is dead". But I don't see Paul as saying the opposite. Let me refer to a Martin Luther's commentary on what Paul was saying about the relationship between faith and works in his letter to the Romans (pardon its length):

God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart.

Luther is not saying that works are necessarily evil, only that they have to be done from the heart if they are really to be good. And because works done simpy out of obedience and fear aren't done from the heart, then they really aren't good works at all.

Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You'd rather act otherwise if the law didn't exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law.

And because in the depths of your heart (the only place that counts) one is in reality an enemy of the law, then the works done from that sort of relationship with God have no merit.

You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless.

Again, Luther understands Paul to be saying that there is a dichotomy between the genuine keeping of the law out of love for God and one out of love for self. God is able to see the difference in people's hearts. He honors the works of those who do good out of genuine love of God. But those who do it only out of fear or think that by doing something that God owes them are going to be rudely awakened at the time of the last judgment. You see, in my own thinking, there is no way that a human being could ever do anything (no matter how much or how grand) that would make God owe him. If we say that good works in and of themselves have merit, then we are saying that it is possible for God to be in our debt, and that just is so obviously wrong on the surface of it as to, I hope, not need any further comment.

But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5.

Here you have the heart that is directed toward God. And because it is, all of its works do have value. If one truly loves God, then one is going to naturally want to do the right thing, so one will pay attention to God's law(s) and keep them gladly. Not out of fear of God and punishment, but out of love for God and his righteous ways.

That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

This is what the passage you have referenced from Paul is referring to. Remember those terms I talked about. To be justified means to be made right with God. It doesn't happen because we do right things -- those things could be done for the wrong reasons. And right things done for the wrong reason are still wrong things. But when faith (i.e. trust in God) is present, it leads us to do things for the right reason. And when we do things for the right reason, out of faith, out of the depth of a heart turned toward God, then God is going to look at us -- imperfect beings though we are, and not count our sin against us -- he is going to look at us and say that we are alright with him (i.e., justified). And this is because of, not our works or the keeping of the law(s) of God, but because of the faith we have placed in God.

Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God. It kills the old [man], makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith.

So, Luther at least, saw Paul and James to be saying basically the same thing: Faith will quite naturally produce good works as the fruit of our faith; if it doesn't then that faith is dead and probably wasn't real to begin with and we're back to square one. You see, James and Paul aren't saying the opposite, but actually complementary things.



Is it getting any clearer? I'll stop again, let you catch your breath and your thoughts, and see if you have any more questions.