3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


Titus 3:3-7 KJV

To answer the OP, Lutherans (LCMS) would not consider it to be a work done by us. Copied this from following link: https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/brief-statement-of-lcms-doctrinal-position#faith-in-christ

Quote:

---

[ol]

We teach that conversion consists in this, that a man, having learned from the Law of God that he is a lost and condemned sinner, is brought to faith in the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, Acts 11:21; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 26:18.

All men, since the Fall, are dead in sins, Eph. 2:1-3, and inclined only to evil, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 8:7. For this reason, and particularly because men regard the Gospel of Christ, crucified for the sins of the world, as foolishness, 1 Cor. 2:14, faith in the Gospel, or conversion to God, is neither wholly nor in the least part the work of man, but the work of God's grace and almighty power alone, Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8; 1:19; Jer. 31:18. Hence Scripture call the faith of men, or his conversion, a raising from the dead, Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12, a being born of God, John 1:12, 13, a new birth by the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23-25, a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world, 2 Cor. 4:6.

On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."

On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

[/ol]

---

Maybe the question isn't "is faith a work?" but instead "is faith a meritorious work?"

Faith is something we "do" but it does not merit a reward. - John Calvin

Jesus is the only one who has done any salvific work.

Titus 3: 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, we must believe, but faith isn't a meritorious work, it's a condition. We must have faith to be saved. Faith is the conduit through which we receive God's blessings; salvation being chief among them. If you don't have this conduit, you don't receive the blessings.

Ephesians 2:9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Zobel said:

---

pitting faith / faithfulness against work / action is just a complete mess...a nonsensical intellectual exercise to split the two apart, angels dancing on a pinhead. no practical value, no pastoral value, no evangelical value.

---

This sums up my beliefs succinctly and in a much clearer way than I could have. Thanks.

And does anyone believe one is going to "hell' for believing they had a part in their salvation or vice versa?

you can fall off the horse both ways. just like the question about free will.

people who engage end up in all sorts of opposite errors, leading to absurd contradictions or requiring illogical presuppositions (faith is something we do and is required for salvation but doesn't save us - ????) or pedantic categories (work vs meritorious work).

waste. of. time.

Zobel said:

---

you can fall off the horse both ways. just like the question about free will.

people who engage end up in all sorts of opposite errors, leading to absurd contradictions or requiring illogical presuppositions (faith is something we do and is required for salvation but doesn't save us - ????) or pedantic categories (work vs meritorious work).

waste. of. time.

---

Yep.

Zobel said:

---

you can fall off the horse both ways. just like the question about free will.

people who engage end up in all sorts of opposite errors, leading to absurd contradictions or requiring illogical presuppositions (faith is something we do and is required for salvation but doesn't save us - ????) or pedantic categories (work vs meritorious work).

waste. of. time.

---

It comes down to defining our words. What one means when they talk about "works" in relation to salvation.

In reality, faith is a gift, not a work, given to us by God.

(Edited to change my wording about what one means so it didn't appear I was addressing you directly; meant a general "you")

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

you can fall off the horse both ways. just like the question about free will.

people who engage end up in all sorts of opposite errors, leading to absurd contradictions or requiring illogical presuppositions (faith is something we do and is required for salvation but doesn't save us - ????) or pedantic categories (work vs meritorious work).

waste. of. time.

---

It comes down to defining our words. What do we mean when we talk about "works" in relation to salvation.

In reality, faith is a gift, not a work, given to us by God.

---

You win. I am drinking coffee watching Christmas Story with my grand kids.

Merry Christmas!

what pastoral value does that distinction have?

Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God." The Calvinist explained, but this is a gift, not a work, given by God, completely out of your control. So do, or don't, because you can't. You may be elect, maybe not. You can have assurance but it might be false.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

you can fall off the horse both ways. just like the question about free will.

people who engage end up in all sorts of opposite errors, leading to absurd contradictions or requiring illogical presuppositions (faith is something we do and is required for salvation but doesn't save us - ????) or pedantic categories (work vs meritorious work).

waste. of. time.

---

It comes down to defining our words. What do we mean when we talk about "works" in relation to salvation.

In reality, faith is a gift, not a work, given to us by God.

---

You win. I am drinking coffee watching Christmas Story with my grand kids.

Merry Christmas!

---

That is a win!

Can I send you this mug to enjoy your coffee in?

Zobel said:

---

what pastoral value does that distinction have?

---

seems pretty obvious to humble.

Zobel said:

---

what pastoral value does that distinction have?

Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God." The Calvinist explained, but this is a gift, not a work, given by God, completely out of your control. So do, or don't, because you can't. You may be elect, maybe not. You can have assurance but it might be false.

---

I think it depends to whom you are talking, as to the value of such a distinction. If the person believes they are in part responsible for their salvation, it's a fruitful discussion. If the person understands there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation then it feels as if we are arguing just for the sake of arguing which of course would not be fruitful.

Quote:

---

If the person believes they are in part responsible for their salvation
If the person understands there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation

---

these two sentences are not opposites.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

If the person believes they are in part responsible for their salvation
If the person understands there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation

---

these two sentences are not opposites.

---

I actually agree with you, I could have chosen much better wording.

If the person believes they can and must, in part at least, earn their salvation, as an employee earns a wage for example, then I believe defining what constitutes a biblical work is important.

the whole idea is debating about earning. you can't earn it, you don't merit it. again - what christian sect teaches otherwise?

nevertheless if you are not faithful you will not be saved. if you have no works you are not faithful. therefore if you do not work you will not be saved. we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it.

Zobel said:

---

the whole idea is debating about earning. you can't earn it, you don't merit it. again - what christian sect teaches otherwise?

nevertheless if you are not faithful you will not be saved. if you have no works you are not faithful. therefore if you do not work you will not be saved. we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it.

---

Why not?

Zobel said:

---

the whole idea is debating about earning. you can't earn it, you don't merit it. again - what christian sect teaches otherwise?

nevertheless if you are not faithful you will not be saved. if you have no works you are not faithful. therefore if you do not work you will not be saved. we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it.

---

.

Maybe there is not one that teaches that; if so, that's great, and I would have to agree the original OP is fruitless. But this OP stemmed from the other post regarding evangelizing to Catholics. For whatever reason, Protestants tend to think Catholics believe we must do something to earn or secure our salvation (be baptized and work synergistically to be fully justified in the end comes to mind).

If you do not have faith you will not be saved - true. God gives us faith as a gift and through that faith we are justified, which is an immediate one time event in which God declares us righteous, not by our works but by Christ's.

because earning is offer for exchange. our salvation began before we were born. how can anyone offer an exchange for Jesus' crucifixion? 'while we were still sinners Christ died for us' - or in our case, not even born. you can't offer anything in exchange for the incarnation, you can't offer an exchange to God for your nature being joined to the divine and therefore being saved from death. you can't offer God anything in exchange for grace, that is God working in the world.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Maybe the question isn't "is faith a work?" but instead "is faith a meritorious work?"

Faith is something we "do" but it does not merit a reward. - John Calvin

Jesus is the only one who has done any salvific work.

Titus 3: 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, we must believe, but faith isn't a meritorious work, it's a condition. We must have faith to be saved. Faith is the conduit through which we receive God's blessings; salvation being chief among them. If you don't have this conduit, you don't receive the blessings.

Ephesians 2:9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

---

If faith is something we "do" why can't we stop doing it in a once saved, always saved framework?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

the whole idea is debating about earning. you can't earn it, you don't merit it. again - what christian sect teaches otherwise?

nevertheless if you are not faithful you will not be saved. if you have no works you are not faithful. therefore if you do not work you will not be saved. we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it.

---

.

Maybe there is not one that teaches that; if so, that's great, and I would have to agree the original OP is fruitless. But this OP stemmed from the other post regarding evangelizing to Catholics. For whatever reason, Protestants tend to think Catholics believe we must do something to earn or secure our salvation (be baptized and work synergistically to be fully justified in the end comes to mind).

If you do not have faith you will not be saved - true. God gives us faith as a gift and through that faith we are justified, which is an immediate one time event in which God declares us righteous, not by our works but by Christ's.

---

To interject, Zobel, this is why I ask the question. The issue is meant to spark questions with how monergism vs synergism, choosing faith but also being saved forever with no chance of falling away don't work together. While I'd prefer people start considering these paradoxes and work themselves back to the traditional churches, the reality is that logical end of a monergistic salvation is going to require Calvinism to stay logical coherent.

sure, maybe it's all fruitless. But I believe God wants all Christians on the same page, and right now we're on a 100 of them. If we can at least whittle this down to 5-10 pages, maybe the discussions can become more fruitful.

I think you'd have to agree that the East and west were very close to reunion at multiple points. But with the explosion of the reformation, reunification is a multi headed hydra that seems impossible. With God, all things are possible. I likely won't make much of a dent in this while I'm on earth, but I feel compelled to try

Zobel said:

---

because earning is offer for exchange. our salvation began before we were born. how can anyone offer an exchange for Jesus' crucifixion? 'while we were still sinners Christ died for us' - or in our case, not even born. you can't offer anything in exchange for the incarnation, you can't offer an exchange to God for your nature being joined to the divine and therefore being saved from death. you can't offer God anything in exchange for grace, that is God working in the world.

---

Would "deserve" be a better term than earn?

The Lutheran perspective seems like a conflict to me. It's monergistic salvation, because people are incapable of choosing a good thing. But they can fall away from the faith if they choose the bad thing. So if we go back to choosing bad things, and God was solely capable for making us choose the good things, it seems to me that God Himself must be removing the saving grace and we end up back at Calvinism.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Maybe the question isn't "is faith a work?" but instead "is faith a meritorious work?"

Faith is something we "do" but it does not merit a reward. - John Calvin

Jesus is the only one who has done any salvific work.

Titus 3: 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, we must believe, but faith isn't a meritorious work, it's a condition. We must have faith to be saved. Faith is the conduit through which we receive God's blessings; salvation being chief among them. If you don't have this conduit, you don't receive the blessings.

Ephesians 2:9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

---

If faith is something we "do" why can't we stop doing it in a once saved, always saved framework?

---

Faith is a sufficient condition for justification, that is present by the gifting of God through regeneration.

Quote:

---

Protestants tend to think Catholics believe we must do something to earn or secure our salvation (be baptized and work synergistically to be fully justified in the end comes to mind).

---

earn and secure are not interchangeable. scriptures command us to strive to make our election sure, to be diligent to make our hope sure. the Lord says only the one who does the will of the Father will enter, not the ones who say "Lord, Lord". and in another place, "why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' but do not do what i say?"

Quote:

---

If you do not have faith you will not be saved - true. God gives us faith as a gift and through that faith we are justified, which is an immediate one time event in which God declares us righteous, not by our works but by Christ's.

---

sigh. so much of the scriptures are completely nonsense with this presupposition taken as an axiom.

so much accretion centuries after the apostles. its sad.

no. i think the better way to do it is to jettison any of these quantitative type frameworks and look at it ontologically.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Maybe the question isn't "is faith a work?" but instead "is faith a meritorious work?"

Faith is something we "do" but it does not merit a reward. - John Calvin

Jesus is the only one who has done any salvific work.

Titus 3: 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, we must believe, but faith isn't a meritorious work, it's a condition. We must have faith to be saved. Faith is the conduit through which we receive God's blessings; salvation being chief among them. If you don't have this conduit, you don't receive the blessings.

Ephesians 2:9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

---

If faith is something we "do" why can't we stop doing it in a once saved, always saved framework?

---

Faith is a sufficient condition for justification, that is present by the gifting of God through regeneration.

---

But why can't we lose faith?

Quote:

---

no. i think the better way to do it is to jettison any of these quantitative type frameworks and look at it ontologically.

---

We can quantify what we have done.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

the whole idea is debating about earning. you can't earn it, you don't merit it. again - what christian sect teaches otherwise?

nevertheless if you are not faithful you will not be saved. if you have no works you are not faithful. therefore if you do not work you will not be saved. we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it.

---

.

Maybe there is not one that teaches that; if so, that's great, and I would have to agree the original OP is fruitless. But this OP stemmed from the other post regarding evangelizing to Catholics. For whatever reason, Protestants tend to think Catholics believe we must do something to earn or secure our salvation (be baptized and work synergistically to be fully justified in the end comes to mind).

If you do not have faith you will not be saved - true. God gives us faith as a gift and through that faith we are justified, which is an immediate one time event in which God declares us righteous, not by our works but by Christ's.

---

To interject, Zobel, this is why I ask the question. The issue is meant to spark questions with how monergism vs synergism, choosing faith but also being saved forever with no chance of falling away don't work together. While I'd prefer people start considering these paradoxes and work themselves back to the traditional churches, the reality is that logical end of a monergistic salvation is going to require Calvinism to stay logical coherent.

sure, maybe it's all fruitless. But I believe God wants all Christians on the same page, and right now we're on a 100 of them. If we can at least whittle this down to 5-10 pages, maybe the discussions can become more fruitful.

I think you'd have to agree that the East and west were very close to reunion at multiple points. But with the explosion of the reformation, reunification is a multi headed hydra that seems impossible. With God, all things are possible. I likely won't make much of a dent in this while I'm on earth, but I feel compelled to try

---

Monergism vs Synergism kind of feels like the crux and would be a good guess as to why Protestants say Catholics teach a false gospel. Either God does all the work or He doesn't. You can't say "Yes, God alone but…".

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

But you believe that God will eventually win over our free will correct? So in the end, we don't really have a choice in our salvation?

To compare it to Calvinism, it's a double predestination, but one in which both groups (believers and non-believers) end up in heaven. God is gonna make them have faith, dang it!

*Winky face to ease the slight of comparing your faith to a theology you don't like*

---

As you know, I have thought through this for years.

First of all, I believe double predestination is an abomination and besmirches God's character under the new covenant and revelation of Jesus Christ.

I believe in free will. Scripture is clear that God desires to save all men (which is another revelation of His character) and that God is love (yet another revelation of His character).

So basically it comes down to does God allow man free will to completely reject him? That would be the ultimate love part of His character and is what CS Lewis believed. That the only people in hell are those who choose to be.

And I am okay with that.

But then on the other side you have God's sovereignty and desire to save all men. And the question is does God over ride free will?

I actually go back and forth on this thought and am okay with either.

---

What do you think of John 6:44 in light of this discussion?

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44, RSV-CE)

one is in the bible, the other isnt

sure. and how do you quantify the blood of God? immortality? being joined to the divine nature?

and again - what christian group teaches this? who are we arguing against?

Zobel said:

---

sure. and how do you quantify the blood of God? immortality? being joined to the divine nature?

and again - what christian group teaches this? who are we arguing against?

---

At the moment, we're not arguing against anyone, but clarifying what is meant by "we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it."

We can quantify what we have done. Can we say we deserve the reward or punishment for what we have done?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

But you believe that God will eventually win over our free will correct? So in the end, we don't really have a choice in our salvation?

To compare it to Calvinism, it's a double predestination, but one in which both groups (believers and non-believers) end up in heaven. God is gonna make them have faith, dang it!

*Winky face to ease the slight of comparing your faith to a theology you don't like*

---

As you know, I have thought through this for years.

First of all, I believe double predestination is an abomination and besmirches God's character under the new covenant and revelation of Jesus Christ.

I believe in free will. Scripture is clear that God desires to save all men (which is another revelation of His character) and that God is love (yet another revelation of His character).

So basically it comes down to does God allow man free will to completely reject him? That would be the ultimate love part of His character and is what CS Lewis believed. That the only people in hell are those who choose to be.

And I am okay with that.

But then on the other side you have God's sovereignty and desire to save all men. And the question is does God over ride free will?

I actually go back and forth on this thought and am okay with either.

---

What do you think of John 6:44 in light of this discussion?

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44, RSV-CE)

---

John 12:32

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people unto myself.

This verse again shows universal atonement. The question is whether God allows man with free will to refuse God's grace. Or not.

yes, we have qualities worthy of reward or punishment based on what we do

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

the whole idea is debating about earning. you can't earn it, you don't merit it. again - what christian sect teaches otherwise?

nevertheless if you are not faithful you will not be saved. if you have no works you are not faithful. therefore if you do not work you will not be saved. we are judged based on what we have done. doesn't mean you earned it.

---

.

Maybe there is not one that teaches that; if so, that's great, and I would have to agree the original OP is fruitless. But this OP stemmed from the other post regarding evangelizing to Catholics. For whatever reason, Protestants tend to think Catholics believe we must do something to earn or secure our salvation (be baptized and work synergistically to be fully justified in the end comes to mind).

If you do not have faith you will not be saved - true. God gives us faith as a gift and through that faith we are justified, which is an immediate one time event in which God declares us righteous, not by our works but by Christ's.

---

To interject, Zobel, this is why I ask the question. The issue is meant to spark questions with how monergism vs synergism, choosing faith but also being saved forever with no chance of falling away don't work together. While I'd prefer people start considering these paradoxes and work themselves back to the traditional churches, the reality is that logical end of a monergistic salvation is going to require Calvinism to stay logical coherent.

sure, maybe it's all fruitless. But I believe God wants all Christians on the same page, and right now we're on a 100 of them. If we can at least whittle this down to 5-10 pages, maybe the discussions can become more fruitful.

I think you'd have to agree that the East and west were very close to reunion at multiple points. But with the explosion of the reformation, reunification is a multi headed hydra that seems impossible. With God, all things are possible. I likely won't make much of a dent in this while I'm on earth, but I feel compelled to try

---

Monergism vs Synergism kind of feels like the crux and would be a good guess as to why Protestants say Catholics teach a false gospel. Either God does all the work or He doesn't. You can't say "Yes, God alone but…".

---

Which is why I think Calvinism/reformed doctrine is the most logical conclusion of "faith alone". May be a pipe dream, but it seems to me if there was one definition for faith alone that Protestants all grouped around, it would be easier for Catholic/EO and Protestants clarify terms, which could lead to better discussions. If listened to numerous Catholic and Protestants have good natured conversations/debates and it seems the first half of it is always trying to understand what the other means by (insert term here)