Editor’s note: In the spirit of pursuing truth and engaging different views, Zeal For Truth will publish guest commentaries such as today’s article written by Josh Herchenroeder. He received a degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University, and then spent three years auditing grad school.
“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” These words, taken from Isaiah 64:6, have become a banner verse for many conservative Christians. All believers who think we’re pathetic, horrible people who can’t get anything right or impress God in any way rally to this standard which seems to legitimize their low view of humanity. The prophet’s words become a universal indictment of Earth’s citizens. I have serious problems with this line of thinking. Not only does it ignore both the immediate context in Isaiah and the broader biblical witness, but it doesn’t even make sense.
Context Explained
The dominant theme of Isaiah 63 and 64 is confession and repentance. The prophet, speaking on behalf of the Israelite people, recognizes their corporate sin and its consequences, and he pleads with God to forgive and bring restoration.
The image that the text brings to mind is of a young lover who has wounded his beloved and realized his mistake, and now finds himself knocking on her door, holding a bundle of flowers up to the peephole. He doesn’t try to persuade her with rational arguments, but instead says things like, “I’m sorry. You’re right, I’m wrong. You’re beautiful, I’m ugly. I’m the dumbest guy ever for saying/doing/thinking that.” Is he truly the dumbest guy ever? Probably not. In the same way, the prophet uses self-deprecating hyperbole to say, “We’re screwed up and we can’t do anything right…will you take us back anyway?”
Even if my interpretation is off, it’s still difficult to argue Isaiah 64:6 is a blanket statement on God’s opinion of our actions. Just look one verse earlier: “You come to the help of those who gladly do right…” If our good deeds truly are filthy rags to God, why would he be interested in helping people for doing right?
Jesus Weighs In
I could run off a list of verses which offer a different perspective on how God feels about our righteousness, but I would rather explore an illustration Jesus uses to reveal God’s character. Matthew 7:9-11 reads,
Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?
Jesus acknowledges that, while we are flawed and certainly not on God’s level, we can give good gifts. But what if we invert the parent/child metaphor and place God on the receiving end—after all, are not our good deeds gifts to our heavenly father?
A young child takes a few crayons and a piece of paper, and five minutes later presents an incoherent scribble to his or her mother. She doesn’t glance at it and declare, “This is crap; you’re a lousy artist.” No, her eyes widen with delight, and before you know it, the refrigerator has another masterpiece hanging on the door. If we respond with such joy at the meager offering of our children, how much more so does God, the source of all that is good in the world!
Does it Even Make Sense?
My house was broken into and robbed last week, and I was still in a foul mood when I showed up to work the next day. A cleaning lady named Ana stopped by my station to talk for awhile. Now, she barely knows any English, and I only know about twelve words in Spanish (and they’re all foods) but this has never deterred her from chattering on for several minutes straight. It always makes me smile, and this day was no exception. Later that day someone randomly brought me a cinnamon bagel, which also made me smile. These two small gestures brightened my day when I really needed it. Did God look at those two acts that were so meaningful to me and say, “That’s gross!”
And what about volunteers who are trying to bring peace and healing to a ravaged Darfur region? Surely God doesn’t view their efforts as useless.
In Man’s Search for Meaning,” Viktor Frankl recounts his tortured existence in a Nazi extermination camp. But alongside the horrors, he tells of the powerful impact when someone could find the strength within himself to offer encouragement, or even to generously offer his daily piece of bread to another. Did God observe such episodes and toss them in the laundry heap? Perhaps, instead, he thought to himself, “Yes, this is what I created them to do. See, even in the worst of times, my creatures can still do good.”
I really don’t have any way of knowing what goes through God’s mind, but I’m not sure why anyone would want to follow a God who treats our best efforts with contempt. Love is reciprocal in any legitimate relationship. If our good deeds truly are filthy rags to God, then how can anyone convincingly argue that he wants our love? If our righteous acts are no more than a dirty dishcloth, then what’s the point of moral living?
Excellent article, with well considered points.
That said, the main context in which I have heard man’s righteousnesses referenced as “filthy rags” is in the context of earning ones salvation. It will be cited alongside verses from Romans 3 to suggest that even the things we think of as “good” are often done with selfish intent or otherwise wrong motivations. I don’t take this to mean that we shouldn’t seek to do good, but rather that we recognize that even our best attempts to “be righteous” will fall short. In the specific case of Isaiah, the people were believing that “doing good things” would make up for their disobedience in God. Even the good things they did were viewed as repugnant due to the state of their heart. As we mold our hearts to God’s, we WILL do good things because we will share his view on what is important.
(This doesn’t mean doing good will always be easy though, see Jesus in the garden pleading that He not need to go to the cross. In the end though, He declares that the Father’s will is supreme. So should it be with us.)
Good article. I would also contend that the Isaiah passage, like many other passages, has been taken completely out of context. Its kind of like when you’re having a conversation with someone, then someone butts in and tries to be a part of it. They just heard part of what you said, and when they try to get a word in, they’re talking about something completely different because they unwittingly misconstrued what you were saying.
But just as Hungry Sasquatch pointed out the audience in Isaiah 64:6, it may have been helpful to define the audience of the article. Because certainly, although Isaiah wasn’t speaking to those outside of the covenant of God, I think the New Testament would bear out that the good deeds of an unbeliever would not justify them in the sight of God. Their good deeds, though well-intentioned, could never make them right with God or righteous (in the Jesus sense), and so in that sense their actions would be as soiled feminine hygiene napkins - that’s the literal meaning of “filthy rags.”
So perhaps we should define righteousness as well. The Bible calls Job righteous, but he could not be righteous in the same way Christians are righteous because “in Christ” we (Christians) are the very righteousness of God, who have been made utterly blameless and without reproach because of the blood of Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:21, Colossians 1:22, etc.). So we could define righteousness in a loose Old Testament sense of doing what is right or we could define it in the Christians sense of being made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ.
I agree with Atanamis, you are misunderstanding the text (not to mention conservative Christians). Good works themselves are not considered worthless to God, and I don’t know any Christians who would tell you that. However, they ARE worthless to earning your salvation. The Bible explicitly tells us that belief is the heart of salvation, and only AFTER salvation do the fruit of good works come. Good works prior to salvation are great, but they don’t get you any points before God.
“Good works prior to salvation are great, but they don’t get you any points before God.”
Exactly.
Hungry, thanks for your article. And BTW, I’m sorry about your house being broken into–again. That stinks!
I pretty much agree with what the earlier commenters have said, making a distinction between the redeemed and the unredeemed. I mentioned in response to an earlier article that I do not believe in universalism, so when you talk about the good deeds that God’s creatures do, I can only agree with your sentiments if you are actually talking about that subset of creatures who have faith in God and in Christ’s work of salvation.
You are entirely right that the scriptures say a lot about good deeds. One of my favorites is Eph 2:10:
Sometimes this verse actually brings me to tears, giving me pause that God actually has a point to my life–a bunch of good stuff for me, his child, to do.
The situation in the Old Testament is a little more complicated, but the NT confirms that it was the faith of the OT characters that brought them righteousness, not the good deeds themselves.
And there is also the fascinating story about the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11, in the transition from OT to NT. God did seem to pay attention Cornelius’s many good deeds, but it also says that Cornelius was seeking God and praying to God while doing those good deeds. v31 “God has heard your prayer and has taken notice of your works of charity.”
I’m glad there are volunteers who, at much personal sacrifice and comfort, go to Darfur to try to help in the midst of a horrible situation. But yes, I do believe that God views their efforts as “useless” if we are talking about those efforts bringing them any closer to salvation. I have even greater admiration for believers who work in Darfur because they can bring peace and healing for both the starving soul and the starving body.
Thainamu, obviously we agree 100% on this. I want to point out something about the scripture you referenced, Ephesians 2:10. I’m quite positive you will agree with this, but for the sake of discussion let me expound a bit. When Paul wrote the Ephesians and told them they were created for a life of good deeds, he was referring to the New Birth as the point of creation or re-creation. The King James says it this way:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Notice the phrase “created in Christ Jesus.” Its quite obvious that this is a Christian audience, so we know this couldn’t refer to the good works of unbelievers. However, this is made more clear by the fact that he references the New Birth or born-again experience. Second Corinthians 5:17 is a parallel passage that offers even more clarification:
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
We could combine these verses and what Jesus said in John 3 without doing any injustice to the spirit of what is written and paraphrase it by saying, “Those who have been born of the Spirit of God have been created in Christ Jesus who, as a result of being born again, have the inherent potential for good works as a result of their being in Christ.”
Darius, my man, I will start with you. You said, “Good works themselves are not considered worthless to God, and I don’t know any Christians who would tell you that.” Good sir, I have known many Christians who have said exactly what you claim they wouldn’t. I have heard it in the Sunday school classroom and from the pulpit. I have traveled across this country and around the world, and I’ve heard it everywhere I’ve been.
Atanamis, I think we’re on the same page with this: “In the specific case of Isaiah, the people were believing that “doing good things” would make up for their disobedience in God. Even the good things they did were viewed as repugnant due to the state of their heart.” Although the text doesn’t explicitly talk about the people’s hearts, I think we would agree that actions are a reflection of a person’s inner being, and the Isaiah text has plenty to say about action. Look at chapter 58, where God explains why he’s ignoring their fasting: They exploit workers (vs 3) and they quarrel and brawl (vs 4). He then explains what a kind of “fast” would be meaningful to him: justice and freedom for the oppressed (vs 6) feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and providing for the poor (vs 7). God is clearly interested in what they do. He wasn’t impressed with their fasting (”doing good things”) but instead he wanted them to do good things. Am I making sense?
Chris: First of all, thanks for that literal translation of “filthy rags”; I’ve never heard that before. When I use the term righteous or righteousness, I mean it in th Old Testament way, as you put it. I don’t really see the New Testament as changing the the definition, but rather as proclaiming a way of being empowered to be righteous. And I like your paraphrase at the end: “Those who have been born of the Spirit of God have been created in Christ Jesus who, as a result of being born again, have the inherent potential for good works as a result of their being in Christ.” There’s certainly something about being a Christian, whether it’s the presence of the Holy Spirit or an intentional effort to know God or something else or a combination of factors, that raises the inherent potential for good works. I’ve seen this in my own life and in the lives of countless others.
It seems to me like we all agree that God likes it when believers do good things. The point of contention seems to be what we do with the good deeds of non-believers. Particularly, all of you seem to be arguing, as Darius put it, “Good works prior to salvation are great, but they don’t get you any points before God.” I have problems with this line of thinking, which probably means I’m going to hell. But what the heck, I’ll argue anyway.
Life is not about accumulating points in hopes of having a qualifying total on the day of judgment. I think all of you would agree with that. However, it seems like the typical Christian perspective is that you don’t earn any points until you believe, and then you suddenly have all of them. First of all, this isn’t biblical, as the Isaiah example will testify. The people believed, and they fasted and prayed and wondered what the problem was; unfortunately for them, their belief didn’t get them any “points” because God wanted action. Second, it makes life about the destination rather than the journey, which really cheapens a vast majority of our existence.
I think we’ve reduced salvation to a post-death ticket to heaven, when the biblical presentation is so much more dynamic and relevant to life now. (Joel B. Green’s book “Salvation” is a really good source for an in depth look at the concept, and he’s more conservative than I am so y’all should like him.) By the same token, I think we’ve made getting to heaven the primary goal of Christianity, when in reality the reverse is true: As Christians, our objective is to bring heaven to earth. With this understanding, the distinction between the deeds of believers and non-believers becomes blurred at best, and at worst inane. When a non-believer does something out of love, does it bring any less good into the world than when a believer does the same thing? Jesus himself said, “Greater love has no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many non-believers over the course of history have sacrificed their lives for loved ones? Does God look down on his throne at that person and say, “Well, all my work in the world is based on love, and you just showed its ultimate expression—something many of my followers never did—but I’m going to throw you in hell anyway”? Look, I’m not arguing that sacrificing your life is or should be an automatic ticket to heaven, but I am saying this is complicated. We Christians follow Jesus’ teachings because we believe in him. But if someone who doesn’t know Jesus does an unselfish act or a loving sacrifice, isn’t that, in a strange way, even more impressive? That person, on some level, believes in good, even if they don’t believe in the Source of good. But isn’t that a step in the journey? Isn’t it possible that God sees that and gets excited?
I feel like I’m rambling now, so I’ll stop. Thanks to all of you for caring enough to respond.
“However, it seems like the typical Christian perspective is that you don’t earn any points until you believe, and then you suddenly have all of them. First of all, this isn’t biblical, as the Isaiah example will testify.”
Thainamu made reference to Cornelius, which I think is very important if we are to determine to what extent an unbelievers works affect God. I went back and re-read the story to get clarification. Here are what I see as pertinent facts about Cornelius’ story. First, the scripture calls him a devout man. Some commentators have said this indicates that, although he was a gentile, he would have been a person who believed in the Hebrew God but was uncircumcised; he might have even attended synagogue. But at any rate, the angel told him that God had heard his prayers. This indicates that he was searching for the true God. Then also the Bible mentions that he gave alms (this is the good works part.) I think that the good works came as a result of him being a God-fearing man. The good works must have been important, otherwise why would they be mentioned here? But I think what is most important is that the angel gave instructions for him to send men to Peter so that he could hear the Gospel and be saved.
Hungry Sasquatch, I do have to disagree with you about whether it is biblical that people get all their “points” with God after believing the Gospel. Again, we must review scripture in context to ascertain the truth or the matter. Since the Bible is progressive revelation, and since we are in a better covenant established on better promises in the New Testament we should get a New Testament witness; Isaiah alone is therefore insufficient. Read the book of Romans. It is so clear that the righteousness of God comes by grace (God’s provision) by faith (our receiving of the provision).
“I think we’ve reduced salvation to a post-death ticket to heaven, when the biblical presentation is so much more dynamic and relevant to life now…By the same token, I think we’ve made getting to heaven the primary goal of Christianity, when in reality the reverse is true: As Christians, our objective is to bring heaven to earth.”
You couldn’t be more right about this. God never created man to live anywhere but earth. Even in the “sweet by and by” there will be a new heaven and a new earth. That’s why good works are so important and should be emphasized in the Christian faith, but only as a means of bearing fruit because of our relationship with Jesus Christ. He is the vine; we are the branches.
Hungry said, “When a non-believer does something out of love, does it bring any less good into the world than when a believer does the same thing?”
There are two sides to doing good deeds–the giving and the receiving. The specific good deed that an unbeliever performs may indeed bring just as much benefit to the world–it may even bring more–as a similar good deed performed by a believer. The beneficiaries of either and both good deeds are blessed and grateful. But what does that have to do with God? In the case of the unbeliever–nothing. I’m glad he did it because it made my life easier/nicer/better but does God reward him with salvation for his good deeds? Not according to scripture.
Scripture teaches that the only way to God is via Jesus Christ, so good deeds done by an unbeliever may indeed make my life nicer, or may make the world nicer, but they don’t bring the doer any closer to God. The person may feel like they’re getting points in some cosmic game of good vs. evil, but the sacrifice of Christ already won the game.
“Jesus himself said, “Greater love has no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many non-believers over the course of history have sacrificed their lives for loved ones? Does God look down on his throne at that person and say, “Well, all my work in the world is based on love, and you just showed its ultimate expression—something many of my followers never did—but I’m going to throw you in hell anyway”?”
First of all, I’m glad it isn’t up to me to know/judge/predict/decide who is going to heaven and who isn’t. I’m especially not dogmatic when it comes to situations where people groups have been isolated from the gospel of Christ. My hope is some of them will see God in creation and seek him somehow and find him somehow. The story of Cornelius may fit into that category–he was somehow seeking so God made a way for him. But in the cases we have been discussing, where the message of the Gospel is freely available, I think the Bible teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is the ONLY means to salvation–not even a loving act of giving up one’s life for his friends would be enough apart from faith in Christ.
I believe what I just said, but I’m the first to admit it doesn’t sound fair. There are a lot of things in Christianity that aren’t fair from my point of view.
“I’m especially not dogmatic when it comes to situations where people groups have been isolated from the gospel of Christ. My hope is some of them will see God in creation and seek him somehow and find him somehow. The story of Cornelius may fit into that category–he was somehow seeking so God made a way for him.”
To me, the biggest gray area about Biblical salvation is as it pertains to children. But I think that Romans is explicit about those who have not heard the gospel. Jesus said that he didn’t come into the world to condemn the world but that the world was already condemned. Consider this passage from Romans 10:
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
From this passage we see that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith is only possible by hearing the gospel (verses 14 and 17). Think about the rhetorical questions in verses 14 and 15. The implication is that people cannot call on Jesus without believing; they cannot believe without hearing; people cannot hear without a preacher, and preachers can’t go unless they are sent. Therefore, how would it be possible for them to be saved?
Now here is the question we need to address: is God sending them to hell for not believing? The answer is no because they are already condemned because of the sin for which they need redemption. So it cannot be God’s fault at all. God so loved the world that he provided his Son as payment for the sins of the whole world; all may receive of it by faith. The blame is primarily with believers, who have been commissioned to send others or go themselves.
Yep, that’s one of the things I mean about not being fair. It hardly seems fair to send a heathen or a child to hell for never hearing because they had no choice in the matter. How can they be held responsible if they never knew any better?
Maybe the two cases are not the same; I don’t know. But they are both gray areas. “…is God sending them to hell for not believing? The answer is no because they are already condemned because of the sin for which they need redemption.” The problem here is that they are not being sent to hell for their own sin, but rather for being born with a sin nature (which is the part that doesn’t seem fair). No personal responsibility is in play in that situation. (I know that leads us quickly to the Calvinism v. Arminianism debate.)
I’ve known a few people who have taken these gray areas as stepping stones along the path to universalism with the thinking that “how could an all-loving and all-knowing God send anyone to hell, especially those who had no choice in the matter (i.e. people who never heard, like children and uninformed heathens)?” Scripture doesn’t teach universalism, so these friends have also had to reject Scripture, at least parts of it.
As you said, this takes to the Calvinism vs. Arminianism thing. I’m not sure I’m either of them personally. I’m definitely not a Calvinist. However, I really don’t see the issue of those who have not hear the Gospel going to hell being a gray area. In order for there to be a biblical gray area, there would have to be either a scriptural basis for doubting the destiny of the unreached or a lack of revealed truth concerning the matter. Some things in scripture are explicit. This, in my opinion, is one of them based on Romans 10.
I think the question of fairness really shouldn’t even enter the picture. Satan isn’t fair, and he’s the author of sin. We know that because of Ezekiel’s account of Lucifer’s pride and subsequent attempt be God essentially. And since the wages of sin is spiritual death, the unbeliever apart from redemption is dead while he lives - both in this life and the next. I think its a mistake to judge God’s fairness based on the work of Satan or a lack of regard for the unredeemed on the part of believers.
I’m not trying to say fairness has anything to do with God. He’s the boss, he doesn’t have to be fair in my (or anyone’s) definition of fair.
I’m just trying to say that plenty of things in Christianity indeed do not seem fair, both good and bad. For example, it does not seem fair that Christ, who knew no sin, should bear the judgment for me, who has sinned plenty. Likewise, it does not seem fair that someone who has never heard the name of Christ should be responsible for responding to Christ’s words “no man comes to the Father but by me.” Something doesn’t sit right with me about that, but that doesn’t make it true or not true. It isn’t up to me; I’m not the boss.
I think what might seem less fair to some is that Christians are actually responsible for their lack of opportunity to respond. When we take the Great Commission into consideration, it seems backwards to make it a question of God’s sovereignty. That puts the blame on Him when it really should be on us. Jesus said “go therefore” because all power had been given to Him. So there was a delegation of authority from the Head to the body. Why else would he say the works that he did we would do also? If we weren’t commissioned to do it and given all the necessary equipment to do it, it wouldn’t be fair. But because we have been given the Holy Spirit, it is fair since Jesus himself was anointed with the same Spirit and went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil (Acts 10:38). We too have been authorized and equipped to continue Christ’s ministry on the earth. I love this passage in 2 Corinthians 5:
18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
God reconciled us through Christ (verse 18); he gave us the same ministry of reconciliation (verses 18 and 19); we are his representatives who implore the unbeliever to be reconciled as Christ would (verse 20). Why has the church failed to do this in 2000 years? I mean we’ve had plenty of time to reach everyone by now. I think its just easier to “put it in God’s hands” when it is evident that he has put it in ours. People have evaded the responsibility by making it a sovereignty issue.
Hungry Sasquatch said: “I have known many Christians who have said exactly what you [Darius] claim they wouldn’t. I have heard it in the Sunday school classroom and from the pulpit.”
My experience matches Hungry Sasquatch’s. What I’ve heard–mostly in Church of Christ or Baptist churches–is explicit statements that even the best, most selfless charitable acts that we perform are worthless before God. Basically, it’s impossible for a human being to ever perform a truly good work, because everything we do is tainted by sin. We are incapable of doing good.
The reason people go so overboard to de-emphasize works is because they want to acknowledge the necessity of God’s grace, without which no one could be saved. Grace is a good thing, and I think it’s probably better that we put too much emphasis on grace than too little.
I don’t see any inherent contradiction between acknowledging that human beings can do good works that are pleasing to God, and also recognizing that works can never add up to salvation. I see salvation and works as orthogonal concepts.
“My experience matches Hungry Sasquatch’s. What I’ve heard–mostly in Church of Christ or Baptist churches–is explicit statements that even the best, most selfless charitable acts that we perform are worthless before God. Basically, it’s impossible for a human being to ever perform a truly good work, because everything we do is tainted by sin. We are incapable of doing good.”
I concur. In some instances people are encouraged to do good works, but its as if they are on a point system whereby they’re never doing enough, and what good would it do anyway? This type of thinking is in direct contradiction to the “well done, thou good and faithful servant” statement Jesus made in Matthew 25.
We should encourage the thinking that says Christians can please God. We don’t please him by our works per se (Romans 8:8), but we please him by faith (Hebrews 11:5,6); works do, however, naturally accompany faith (James 2:17,20,26).
What a few of you seem to be ignoring (or confusing, which is more likely the case) is the difference between good works as just that (actions that help other people) and good works as a means to salvation. I attended a Baptist church for many years and I don’t know one person who ever claimed (and I really doubt either Jew, Chris, or Hungry have come across more than one or two people who would say likewise) that God thinks all good works are worthless. After all, James explicitly denied that idea, stating in fact that they are proof that one is saved. Again, like Atanamis, Thainamu, and I have already said, there is a huge distinction to be made between good deeds by Christians or non-Christians as a method to serve others and relying on good deeds for salvation.
God loves good works, and encourages them throughout the NT. Even the unsaved can do good works. However, good works by a non-Christian ARE worthless in helping that person get any closer to God or eternal salvation. On the other hand, once a person has come to Christ, and good deeds are no longer viewed as a way to get to heaven, then God puts much value on them as a way to “work out” one’s faith and to get reward in the afterlife. After all, Jesus repeatedly spoke of the need to work for heavenly treasures. He didn’t say that to get to heaven, one had to do good works (quite clearly, He said the opposite). But once you are assured of heaven, through faith, every Christian is called to build up more “treasure in heaven.”
If in fact Jew, Chris, or Hungry have indeed heard someone deny just what I’ve said (not the misinterpretation that Hungry made of my comment), then that is really too bad. However, I doubt almost any conservative Evangelical would claim that good works by Christians, when taken out of the salvation discussion, are worthless before God. I’m sure He’s also not indifferent to an unsaved person who, of their own pure motives (if there is such a thing apart from God, side debate), serves another or treats someone with real love. At the same time, He isn’t going to give them a second glance on Judgment Day. Belief is what ultimately matters, works are just the outward fruit of right belief. If a hyper-Calvinist believes that God will save whom He chooses and no evangelism is necessary, that is wrong belief. If legalists (think Longview Baptist Temple, for those who know to what I am referring) feel that to be a proper Christian, one has to attend every gathering of believers, spend every waking moment witnessing to others, or he is in sin, then that too is wrong belief.
Darius,
I cannot argue with your experience, and neither can you argue with mine. Certainly, if someone directly asked the question, “Do you think the good works of a Christian are worthless to God?” I agree with you that few people would answer in the affirmative. However, much of the traditional thinking that I am referring to is less direct than that. Suppose you asked this question instead: “Do you think a Christian could ever please God?” I would venture to say you would have a considerable number of people say “no” or at least many of them would be uncertain. The implication, though not explicit, is that you cannot please God because “he is infinite, we are finite” yada yada yada.
Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that certain biblical truths have been wrongly applied to multiple audiences. There are three main biblical audiences: the church, the Jews, and the rest of the nations or Gentiles (1 Corinthians 10:32). Confusion about righteousness arises when a scripture is misapplied to the Christian audience. Here’s a common passage misapplied to Christian audiences:
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Some have implied, based on this passage, that even Christians cannot be righteous. But if you read the verse in context, it is being applied to both Jewish and Gentile audiences apart from the grace of Jesus Christ. But to hear some people explain it, this scripture means that we’re all unworthy “sinners in the hands of an angry God.”
Darius said: “What a few of you seem to be ignoring (or confusing, which is more likely the case) is the difference between good works as just that (actions that help other people) and good works as a means to salvation.”
That’s a great way to put it. What I was trying to get at is that a lot of people (in my experience) understand that good works are not a means to salvation. Then something short-circuits in their brains and they say “Good works are useless. We’re so bad that even our good works look evil to God.” If you ask them directly, they will most likely agree that God does like it when we do good things. But in an effort to avoid any appearance of legalism, they take every opportunity to downplay and outright deny the importance of good works. (It’s not a real big issue, though. In my list of problems with Christianity today, this is way, way down on the list.)
As Chris Austere mentions, when we get right down to arguing theology there is probably no disagreement. I just don’t like the rhetoric that paints mankind as unable to do anything good or pleasing to God. That’s not an accurate depiction of the human condition.
Darius, this sort of reminds me of the discussion we had about unscriptural “worship” songs. Here are some familiar lyrics that demonstrate the lack of understanding of biblical righteousness:
“I’m coming back to the heart of worship ’cause its all about you..I’m sorry Lord for the thing I’ve made it…Longing just to bring something that’s of worth…”
One day it occurred to me what I was singing. I was apologizing to God for what? I never made worship into anything wrong. What am I saying? And now I’m telling him I’m coming back to the heart of worship? And I suppose next Sunday we’ll sing this song again as if I need to repent again for something I never did? What kind of insanity is this? When does this cycle of unworthiness end? Didn’t Jesus wash me from my sins? And didn’t he present me unblameable before the Father? And didn’t the Bible say if I confessed my sins he was faithful and just to forgive me? And why am I supposed to be longing to bring God something of worth when my worth is based upon what he did for me? The only thing he asked of me was to present my body as a living sacrifice.
Chris, regarding worship songs…
I agree that sung too often, a song like “The Heart of Worship” can bring a person to misunderstand their standing before God. On one hand, God does view us as clean and blameless. But on the other hand, as Christians we are called to repeatedly repent of sin, even AFTER we come to Christ. He sees us as perfect (in the strictly judge and jury sense) yet also sees our failings and our need to confess and repent of post-salvation sin. That sin is paid for, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t pain God’s heart to see us still brought low by that from which He redeemed us.
At the core of “The Heart of Worship” is the understanding that Christians can tend to get robotic in their worship practices and what Jesus requires is a heart that seriously contemplates the lyrics that one is singing and the holiness of God. Such a song can act as a reminder that no matter how great or scripturally-sound a song’s lyrics can be, ultimately the responsibility to make that worship time actually honoring to God lies with the worshiper.
Furthermore, while I disdain certain “worship” songs, I also recognize (as should we all) that even the ones that may not be as theologically-sound as we might prefer (assuming they’re not heretical) can be sung with the right mindset and spirit by a believer who is scripturally-sound in his or her worship. To take the song you mentioned, I can sing that with the knowledge that I am saved and redeemed, but that I need to constantly remind myself of just how amazing that salvation is and how all the glory and focus goes to God or I will tend toward an apathetic or unintentional style of personal worship.
Regarding the “works are meaningless” idea, I have also heard it before from people professing to be believers. They will claim “liberty” in the gospel, and claim that they no longer have a requirement to “live under law”. This is a perversion of the teachings that while our salvation is based on faith in Christ alone, we are still expected to run the race and earn the commendation of Christ in how we run it.
Regarding “Heart of Worship,” when I heard the story behind the song I felt that the words expressed a deep communication from song writer (Matt Redman) to God, but that the song isn’t really especially suitable for corporate worship. In the context of songwriter-to-God communication, it makes a lot more sense. (In other words, the confession expressed in the lyrics may be too specific to be useful for me to sing.)
Well, I certainly can’t argue with one’s experience. That is sad, and gives me a better understanding of how movements like the Emerging church can take hold (in response to such bad theology). Unfortunately, I think they “doth protest” too much. But that’s a different discussion.
I wonder if certain areas of the country are more prone to those type of churches, or just that some have had much better “luck” in finding biblically-sound churches (as I have). My church growing up was sound and of the Swedish Baptist variety, and while it may have had some members with their own odd views, on the whole, the teaching and leadership of the church was right on. Same with the church(es) I attended in college, I never found any big weakness (though I probably wasn’t as discerning as I am now). And the same applies to the church I have attended since graduating college and getting married.
However, I am aware that this isn’t everyone’s experience. While I think that some may misunderstand or misrepresent some churches (as I believe some in the EC tend to do to help make a point), obviously there are plenty of ones that do need a theological house cleaning.
Good comment, Thainamu. Furthermore, the song acts as a reminder that God wants a “broken and contrite heart” (true worship) instead of “burnt offerings and sacrifices” (lip service worship).
“But on the other hand, as Christians we are called to repeatedly repent of sin, even AFTER we come to Christ. He sees us as perfect (in the strictly judge and jury sense) yet also sees our failings and our need to confess and repent of post-salvation sin. That sin is paid for, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t pain God’s heart to see us still brought low by that from which He redeemed us.”
Sure, we should repent if we do wrong. And we shouldn’t wait until we come to church either. But songs like this wrongly assume that you have committed this particular sin or are at least that you are doomed to. We have this promise from scripture:
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).
This scripture tells us that we can walk in the light just like Jesus, and if we do this his blood cleanses us from ALL sin. That means that we don’t have to “stumble in the darkness” like another popular song says. It actually says, “when I stumble in the darkness,” assuming that you will. You’re not going to catch me singing that or the other song either. I’m not hell bent towards failure because God always causes me to triumph in Christ (2 Corinthians 2:14).
The bottom line is this: if we sin we have an advocate with the Father, and we should definitely repent. But if we repent, do we then come to God as though he hasn’t forgiven us? Talk about a slap in the face to Jesus! If we do that we are saying in essence, “Your blood was not enough to cleanse me, and because I am so intent on wallowing in my guilt, I’m going to sing about it in worship to you.”
“Furthermore, while I disdain certain ‘worship’ songs, I also recognize (as should we all) that even the ones that may not be as theologically-sound as we might prefer (assuming they’re not heretical) can be sung with the right mindset and spirit by a believer who is scripturally-sound in his or her worship.”
Maybe if we didn’t know any better, this would be true. But once we know the truth, is it okay to openly contradict God even if its in the right attitude? I say no. In fact, my conscience just won’t allow me to sing some of this stuff.
Atanamis said: They will claim “liberty” in the gospel, and claim that they no longer have a requirement to “live under law”.
I’ve heard a few people say that, too. But my background and experiences are more evangelical than liberal, and the people who voiced those views were definitely not conservative Evangelicals. So I have encountered that kind of belief only occasionally, although my experience is certainly not representative of Christianity (or even American Christianity) as a whole.
In my experience, most people will say that they are no longer required to live by the Law, but then they still consider the moral commandments of the Bible (or at least the New Testament) to be binding.
For Chris - “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”
Those words were written by Paul. And just above them, he also wrote “for in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.”
Chris, you are still confusing terms here. Yes, Jesus cleanses us from sin (as in we are no longer guilty), and calls us to be sinless. Yet at the same time, just as Paul recognized, we still fall. To deny this fact is to be extremely unrealistic. And not acknowledging it doesn’t keep it from God, I think He kinda knows that our sinful, corrupted flesh is going to pull us down.
Darius,
I’m so glad you brought up Romans 7. As it turns out, I was just preaching from this very text a couple of weeks ago. When it comes to Romans (like every other book in the Bible) context in crucial. I always use the analogy of someone butting into someone’s conversation and misunderstanding because they only heard part of it.
Here is what you missed: in context Paul is talking about the weakness of the Mosaic law.
5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
When Paul says “we were in the flesh” he was referring to the Law of Moses. He is basically pointing out the weakness of law because it tried to regulate a person outwardly. But when he says that we serve in “newness of spirit” rather than the oldness of the letter, he’s talking about being governed inwardly by the witness of the Spirit because of the New Birth. He’s contrasting the two covenants; ours is better. Now let’s get to the part you quoted:
22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Here again is a contrast between the outward man and the inward man. Sure, there is a law in your members (flesh) that will oppose the will of God. Some have called it the Adamic nature or sin nature, but there is a law of God after the inward man as well. So how do we develop so that we bear the fruit of the spirit and not the works of the flesh? Its simple.
“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and YE SHALL NOT fulfil the lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).
Is this unrealistic? Only if you don’t believe it. All things are possible with God, and all things are possible to him that believes. What you think determines what you believe. The problem is that most Christians have not been taught this, and so they always have an excuse for their failures like, “I’m just an old sinner saved by grace.” And people actually think that’s humility. I’m not saying I’ve lived a flawless life, but the thing is that people have set the bar too low. They’re preparing for spiritual failure. If we sing about you weaknesses and failures, it doesn’t glorify God. It glorifies the flesh and to a lesser extent the Devil.
Regarding “heart of worship” I agree with Chris to a certain extent. As I worship leader, I can tell you that I only pull that song, and songs like it, when I believe that the Lord is desiring repentance or a re-examination in the worship time.