As I have mentioned in the past, I live in an area which is very heavily Calvinist. Personally I’ve turned to Unitarianism my own self, but I continue to observe and get an earful about the predominant faith around here from neighbors and relatives. Over time, I’ve watched the 4 main churches (Reformed, Christian Reformed, Presbyterian and Orthodox Presbyterian) go from vigourous fighting between them over disputes of doctrine to putting on a sort of unified front in the face of incursions made by the Lutherans, Catholics, the random Baptist, and even the Ba’hais (mostly repelled by the community at large).
Now however, accusations of Heresy are flying again! They presently are being directed at the local Orthodox Presbyterian church network, by a group calling themselves the Reformed Presbyterian Church. As far as I can ascertain, the accusers seem to be quite concerned with the Orthodox Presby’s over the matter of “works”. The Reformed Presby’s seem to be saying that to require good works from Christians is heretical, as “faith” is the only requirement for salvation. Meanwhile, the Doxies seem to be asserting that they “expect” good works from Christians.
Can any of our erudite scholarly theology crunchers put this in terms I can understand, so I can better grasp what my neighbors and relatives are all het up about? When I try to get those in my community to explain it to me directly, they keep trying to ‘save’ me so I’d rather not go that route.
I also would appreciate knowing if this is part of the “Christian Reconstructionist” movement, which has also shown signs of activity here.
As someone who has had his name struck from the “Book of Life” entrusted to the Canadian Reformed Church by God himself, I wish you luck in figuring it all out. If I were you I’d just ignore the entire fracas as best as I can, and my bet is that the most likely outcome is another “reformed” Calvinist church.
In any case the “Christian” debate over salvation through faith alone versus salvation through works has been debated endlessly including here on the SDMB. But for the Calvinists that I have known, what you believe on any issue this size could get you excommunicated. One side has the Holy Spirit, while the other side obviously doesn’t and thus is controlled by none other than Satan himself. Dogma/doctrine is taken very very seriously by these people.
Caveat: posting from a 40 year old memory of these people.
Let me rephrase it as I think I’m understanding it. It appears that both groups are saying the same thing, that salvation comes only through trusting (having faith, placing confidence) in Jesus, who died on the cross in order to forgive the world of sin. However, the Orthodox Presbyterians are stating that as a result of salvation, they expect that good works would follow. The Reformed Presbyterians are stating that since salvation comes through faith alone, doing good works plays no part in the actual process of salvation.
(Opinion statement) They’re saying the same thing, that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, not by works. Where they differ is that one group, the Reformed Presbys, are saying that faith is sufficient and that’s it. They are not speaking at all of what happens after salvation. The Orthodox Presbys are saying that faith is sufficient, but after salvation, evidence of salvation may come through good works. So they’re both saying salvation comes by faith and not by works, they’re just really arguing about what comes after.
Then again, what does Jesus say to do? Good works. Certainly bad works aren’t promoted in the Bible.
It might be interesting to highlight a few bible passages here. Funny how you hear Ephesians 2:9 very often in churches that hold to the line of the R. Presbys, but you rarely hear Ephesians 2:10. (/Long-winded opinion statement)
As for Christian Reconstructionism, I’m really not qualified to say anything about it, as I’m just coming to understand it myself, and not very well.
Why don’t you just ask them if they shouldn’t consider doing good works 'cause you know, it’s a good thing and not to worry about whether they’re chalking up brownie points with the big guy? Especially in light of the unknowable aspect of God and all that.
For all we know the only thing that’s gonna get you into heaven is the ability to read and write fluent Tengwar or something…
It doesn’t sound to me like that’s the argument here. It sounds like both groups are on the side of faith only, but disagree on the role of works after salvation happens by grace through only faith.
That isn’t to say that the faith/works argument isn’t another big discussion within Christianity, and it would be an interesting thing to explore elsewhere.
Saved by faith, and not by works? So if you believe in God but are a totally evil, baby eating, goat raping, genocidal maniac, faith gets you a free pass? COOL!
Then why the hell are they taking potshots at each other in the local papers, sniping about heresies and being on downbound trains for eternal damnation???
And I ain’t askin’ 'em directly either! When I do that, they put aside their differences and unite just long enough to generate a list of all my character defects and tell me I’d best get my butt into their church. Then when I don’t go there, they fight over which church to condemn me in.
So mostly I mind my own business, and just ask how Great-aunt Berta and cousin Henk are doing.
I guess I am just curious as to what it is exactly that’s setting a bunch of Calvinist fundamentalists at each other’s throats. But hey, better they’re going for each other’s (spiritual) jugulars than those of me and mine!
Well, sorta. The argument goes like this: since only God can save man, there are therefor no works sufficient to earn admittance to heaven. Thus in a sense you’re correct; under this theology neither the good man nor the goat rapist can make it into heaven on their own merits. However, being saved by grace isn’t merely a matter of believing that God exists. As Paul, I think, points out in a verse that I cannot find, demons believe in the Lord, and are afraid. People who have been saved by grace will presumably begin to do good works out of the fullness of the holy spirit: the goat rapist will quit raping goats, and the good man will keep on truckin’. If the goat rapist goes on raping goats, we can reasonably infer that God has not saved him.
If you’re like me, this makes you wonder what the practical difference is, from the perspective of Christians who are trying to do God’s will. There isn’t one. The two are completely indistinguishable from our perspective, and IMO attempts to choose between them are thinly-veiled excuses for factionalism. YMMV.
This doesn’t seem to be quite the argument that Qadgop’s Presbyterians are having. I think it’s something to do with whether it’s possible to lose your salvation through evil works, or whether such works mean that you were never saved to begin with. Honestly, though, it’s hard to tell through all the snide backstabbing in the OP’s link. Seriously now: who starts off an attempt to minister to brothers who have fallen astray with song parodies?
Last Q addressed-
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Episcopal Church are the two denominations I know of in which C’tian Reconstructionism has become accepted. I think perhaps also in the Presbyterian Church of America, and maybe even the Christian Reformed Church, tho the CRC is comparatively liberal compared to the other churches.
Now to the main concern- have the terms “Lordship Salvation”, “Auburn Avenue Theology” or “New Perspectives on Paul” been floating around in this debate? The first was raised by Rev. John MacArthur in his critique of modern Evangelicalism for emphasing belief in Christ as Savior over obedience to Him as Lord. The latter two seem to derive from studies Anglican theologian N. T. Wright has done in how Paul’s teachings of faith>works vs. Jewish legalism has been misunderstood in Reformed circles. James B. Jordan, Mark Horne & Douglas Wilson have accepted some of Wright’s ideas & they have some connection to C’tian Recon (Jordan used to be a big name in it but now dissociates himself from a lot of it.)
I hadn’t heard of that one before. I see they’re not in my area.
Certainly my link mentions Auburn avenue, and the writer of the link seems to be anti-Auburn. Otherwise I cannot keep clear in my head the charges and counter-charges, which include things like: “Now, Great Commission Publications, which describes itself as ‘the publishing ministry of the Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Committee for Christian Education & Publications of the Presbyterian Church in America,’ is promoting these heresies to 3 and 4 year olds”. (From my link above).
Well, here are links to an interview with “the Monroe Four” who promote “Auburn Avenue Theology” and to a countering article. I kinda grasp what the fuss is about but darned if I can figure why it’s so critical (much like my view of the Nestorian controversy & the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist).
Jeez…they’re CALVINISTS! The basic line is that God chose his Saved before the world was even created and even if you profess belief in Christ, you can’t be saved unless you’re in that Big Book of Names already. NOTHING anyone actually does makes a lick of difference in that worldview, which is why they have no problem wasting so much time shouting at each other for tallying up the wrong angel-dancing-on-pin total.
Imagine I have three kids, Adam and Becky and Charlie, and the baby Dana. I leave them alone and despite being old enough to know better, let Dana fall and hurt herself. I come back, discover it, and send them to their rooms to think about it. Adam seems unrepentant. Becky and Charlie seem genuinely sorry, and axious to prevent something like that happening again.
But Charles later gives Dana a present. Some people would say Becky’s repentence was truer, because she realised there’s no way to buy forgiveness. Some would say Charles’ is, because he tried to demonstrate his love.
And then Charles and Becky accuse each other of being heretics, pawns of Satan, leading the hapless Dana into a viper’s nest of depravity? That’s what the local Predikants seem to be saying about each other.
And what of Adam? Is he the one who’s saved already, so it doesn’t matter what he does?
And were any of these youths circumcised? And if so, hands or no hands?
Thanks for trying! But I think jayjay has demonstrated what my default position on these local disputes should be.
Thank you! I had been confused, wondering how Predestination worked into this since I adore it as one of the most theologically flabbergasting concepts around.
My understanding always was that no amount of good works were going to save you if you were without faith; but faith without good works is an oxymoron.
