What is Works Theology?

[OzSpen]

What is your definition of works?

The fallacy in the works gospel is that people do good works that are not children of God. Some Muslims do good works. Are they saved?
The children of God are to bare fruit for Christ. That means they are ambassadors for Christ. Sharing the gospel of grace is the good works the children of God are to do. If all the Christians teach is good works of the flesh then how does the message of Jesus paying for all the sins of the world get through?

You reference James and use his book to help your theology. A book that was clearly written to the Jews who were under the law. You used the words "genuine faith". How can a person see "genuine faith" in another person? Are those Muslims that do good works saved?

Only God can see into the heart and know its faith. There are many that are seen by others to be Christian because of what they do. But, as can be seen they sin just as everyone else does. I see "genuine faith" when a person is not moved by Satan to embrace a false gospel of works. I see them on this forum and I see what the good works crowd does to them.

The gospel of good works is used to get people to believe that good works will save, or keep them saved and that is not true. Many on this forum preach good works and when you see what they write about others it is obvious that they are not Christian. They just can't write a reply stating what they believe without attacking the character of others. This and all along they preach good works. I suppose the Pharisees were doing a good work when they lied about Jesus and sent Him to be crucified.

A person has to either have faith in what Jesus did on the cross for mankind or just think they can be like Jesus and do good works of the flesh to save them. Ask the question as to why they think they are saved and see the answers that they give.

You didn't deal with the specifics I raised.

 

[GodsGrace]

You didn't deal with the specifics I raised.

I'm beginning to realize that most never do....
they just basically change the subject.

It doesn't get the conversation anywhere.
Just....

 

[H. Richard]

You didn't deal with the specifics I raised.

Nor did you deal with the specifics I raised.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm beginning to realize that most never do....
they just basically change the subject.

It doesn't get the conversation anywhere.
Just....

GodsGrace,

When people do this, it is an example of erroneous reasoning. It's called a red herring.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (The Nizkor Project: Red Herring).​

We can't have a rational discussion when people use any form of logical fallacy, which is designed to divert attention from the topic under discussion.

I blog on a secular Australian e-journal site. The 'Comments' section is replete with logical fallacies against Christianity. I have had articles published on that site. I regard it as an opportunity to take Christ into the public square. Logical fallacies are dumped on my responses regularly.

However, unreasonable reasoning should not be happening on a Christian forum. It's too bad moderators don't step in to alert posters about what they do.

Oz

​

 

[OzSpen]

Nor did you deal with the specifics I raised.

When you respond with a logical fallacy that doesn't deal with what I posted, you engage in fallacious reasoning.

I will not respond to such fallacies. When you use them you destroy reasonable conversation.

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

When people do this, it is an example of erroneous reasoning. It's called a red herring.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (The Nizkor Project: Red Herring).​

We can't have a rational discussion when people use any form of logical fallacy, which is designed to divert attention from the topic under discussion.

I blog on a secular Australian e-journal site. The 'Comments' section is replete with logical fallacies against Christianity. I have had articles published on that site. I regard it as an opportunity to take Christ into the public square. Logical fallacies are dumped on my responses regularly.

However, unreasonable reasoning should not be happening on a Christian forum. It's too bad moderators don't step in to alert posters about what they do.

Oz
Of course I agree,,, even though I don't know what each fallacy is named.

BTW Oz,
I wanted to comment on that journal but it wants me to join and I have difficulty doing this.

You really should post the journal here... (I mean the link, of course).
It's not yours so you wouldn't be breaking any rules...
It's a public journal and if anyone wanted to comment on its articles, I think it would be a very good idea.

​

 

[OzSpen]

Oz
Of course I agree,,, even though I don't know what each fallacy is named.

BTW Oz,
I wanted to comment on that journal but it wants me to join and I have difficulty doing this.

You really should post the journal here... (I mean the link, of course).
It's not yours so you wouldn't be breaking any rules...
It's a public journal and if anyone wanted to comment on its articles, I think it would be a very good idea.

​

GodsGrace,

On Line Opinion is the name of the Australian e-journal. Here is a list of the articles I've had published (please follow the link). I encourage those on this forum who can make a reasonable defence of the faith to join this forum. I warn you: Be prepared for antagonism. I'd rather have that than laid-back nothing kinds of responses.

It wants us to join so we can register a pen name. Mine is the one I use here, OzSpen. I've found this journal's editor is sympathetic to Christian articles. I've only had one refusal and that was an article on euthanasia relating to a fellow, aged 104, who went to Switzerland to be euthanised. I have placed it on my homepage: Kill yourself if life is meaningless: Dr David Goodall’s dangerous precedent.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

On Line Opinion is the name of the Australian e-journal. Here is a list of the articles I've had published (please follow the link). I encourage those on this forum who can make a reasonable defence of the faith to join this forum. I warn you: Be prepared for antagonism. I'd rather have that than laid-back nothing kinds of responses.

It wants us to join so we can register a pen name. Mine is the one I use here, OzSpen. I've found this journal's editor is sympathetic to Christian articles. I've only had one refusal and that was an article on euthanasia relating to a fellow, aged 104, who went to Switzerland to be euthanised. I have placed it on my homepage: Kill yourself if life is meaningless: Dr David Goodall’s dangerous precedent.

Oz

I'm going to try to sign in again,,,,right now.
(using your link).

 

[OzSpen]

I'm going to try to sign in again,,,,right now.
(using your link).

Church is calling me at 8:06am Sunday.

 

[GodsGrace]

GodsGrace,

On Line Opinion is the name of the Australian e-journal. Here is a list of the articles I've had published (please follow the link). I encourage those on this forum who can make a reasonable defence of the faith to join this forum. I warn you: Be prepared for antagonism. I'd rather have that than laid-back nothing kinds of responses.

It wants us to join so we can register a pen name. Mine is the one I use here, OzSpen. I've found this journal's editor is sympathetic to Christian articles. I've only had one refusal and that was an article on euthanasia relating to a fellow, aged 104, who went to Switzerland to be euthanised. I have placed it on my homepage: Kill yourself if life is meaningless: Dr David Goodall’s dangerous precedent.

Oz

I joined!
It looks interesting.
BTW,,,what's a furphy????
Don't Australians speak English?
LOL

 

[GodsGrace]

Church is calling me at 8:06am Sunday.

Have a nice Sunday.
It's 12:13 a.m. Sunday here....
Good night/morning.

 

[Jay Ross]

I joined!
It looks interesting.
BTW,,,what's a furphy????
Don't Australians speak English?
LOL

A furphy is Australian slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. Furphies are supposedly 'heard' from reputable sources, sometimes second hand or thirdhand, and widely believed until discounted.

A link with more information <Furphy - Wikipedia>

It is a bit like an American "thong" is not worn on the feet as it is in Australia. The wearing of a thong in America means that you can get sunburn on your four cheeks at the same time, whereas in Australia "thongs" are considered as safety footwear for many activities. I thing you would call them flip flops.

Shalom

 

[H. Richard]

When you respond with a logical fallacy that doesn't deal with what I posted, you engage in fallacious reasoning.

I will not respond to such fallacies. When you use them you destroy reasonable conversation.

NOR WILL I.

 

[GodsGrace]

A furphy is Australian slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. Furphies are supposedly 'heard' from reputable sources, sometimes second hand or thirdhand, and widely believed until discounted.

A link with more information <Furphy - Wikipedia>

It is a bit like an American "thong" is not worn on the feet as it is in Australia. The wearing of a thong in America means that you can get sunburn on your four cheeks at the same time, whereas in Australia "thongs" are considered as safety footwear for many activities. I thing you would call them flip flops.

Shalom

I understand. It's like England English and American English...
Lift.....elevator
Underground.......subway
Subway..........Underground !!

I was reading some comments in that journal @OzSpen posted and some said the bible was furphy. Yes, many believe this. There has to be something, in my opinion, that keeps us grounded in our faith. It can't only be spiritual truth because we also have a mind that functions. Jesus said we're to believe with heart, and mind.

My belief is based on the resurrection and the Apostles truthfullness about it.
As Paul said,,,if it is not true, we are the most wretched in the world. (or words to that effect).

Thanks for the info!

 

[GodsGrace]

A furphy is Australian slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. Furphies are supposedly 'heard' from reputable sources, sometimes second hand or thirdhand, and widely believed until discounted.

A link with more information <Furphy - Wikipedia>

It is a bit like an American "thong" is not worn on the feet as it is in Australia. The wearing of a thong in America means that you can get sunburn on your four cheeks at the same time, whereas in Australia "thongs" are considered as safety footwear for many activities. I thing you would call them flip flops.

Shalom

I thought THIS might be a furphie:

 

[GodsGrace]

NOR WILL I.

I also wish we'd all stick to the subject at hand.
It would make conversations much easier...especially when we don't understand what another member is stating.

 

[OzSpen]

I joined!
It looks interesting.
BTW,,,what's a furphy????
Don't Australians speak English?
LOL

GodsGrace,

Dr Google would have told you. In Urban Dictionary for Australia it means, 'Australia rumor: a rumor or piece of gossip, especially one that is not true ( slang ).'

It's Aussie slang for an error, mistake, even lies.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I thought THIS might be a furphie:

 

[OzSpen]

I also wish we'd all stick to the subject at hand.
It would make conversations much easier...especially when we don't understand what another member is stating.

GodsGrace,

I consider we have substantial examples of good works (works theology) in what God approves and disapproves in the final judgment for unbelievers.

Matthew 25:34-46 (NLT:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’

45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’

46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”​

To me that is very clear about positive works theology for the blessed and negative works theology for the damned.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

A furphy is Australian slang for an erroneous or improbable story that is claimed to be factual. Furphies are supposedly 'heard' from reputable sources, sometimes second hand or thirdhand, and widely believed until discounted.

A link with more information <Furphy - Wikipedia>

It is a bit like an American "thong" is not worn on the feet as it is in Australia. The wearing of a thong in America means that you can get sunburn on your four cheeks at the same time, whereas in Australia "thongs" are considered as safety footwear for many activities. I thing you would call them flip flops.

Shalom

Thanks, Jay, from a fellow Brissy boy.

That's an excellent explanation.

I went to a morning tea at a retirement village today and sat opposite a woman with an Irish accent. We discussed accents and how difficult it is to remove them. She has been in Aust 17 years and still has a strong accent. She came from Dublin and said she found it difficult to understand those from Cork, Ireland.

Oz