How Do I Fit Rewards into My Grace Centered Theology? A Theology of Rewards

Rewards in heaven. I hope to have some, but the idea of rewards in heaven is difficult to fit into my theology. My mother used to say, “As long as I make it, I don’t care if I am riding a tricycle.”
Christ taught that there will be rewards in heaven. Each person will receive a certain “bonus” according to his deeds. Listen to this:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:19-21 19)
 What do we do with this? If I was in the hearing of Christ at this time, I would have asked him some questions:
1. “Jesus, how do we get these rewards?”
2. “Jesus, I thought that redemption—everlasting life—was our reward. Are you saying that we are going to have rewards on top of this reward? A ‘heavenly bonus’?”
3. “Jesus, does everyone receive the same rewards?”
Finally, assuming that I know the answer to these first two (which I think I do), I would ask one final question:
4. “Jesus, what is the decisive cause of these rewards, our works or your grace?”
If it is of grace then it is not of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). Therefore the answer to the first question would have to be “good deeds.” The context to this statement in Matt. 6 is not seeking the rewards of men by pridefully praying or putting on a long face while fasting in public to be seen as holy. Do all things in secret “and your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (v. 18). This implies that there will be rewards in addition to eternal life. That takes care of question two.
In answer to question three is easy. That everyone does not get the same amount of rewards is evident. Not only does the passage above necessarily imply this, Luke 19 and the parable of the minas teaches us as much also. As well, Paul instructs us telling the Corinthians that there will be a time of reckoning for our rewards. At this time, some people’s rewards works will be tested and found wanting. Though their salvation is secure, some people’s rewards will be lost. (i.e. They will not get much of a bonus).
“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:12-15)
This would include those people who fast and pray for the praise of men. Their heavenly reward will be burned up, though their life is secure in God.Â
How do I fit this into my theology?
It is the fourth question (”What is the decisive cause of these rewards, our works or your grace”) that causes me to ponder with some confusion. If Since my salvation is by grace alone without any reference to works (Rom. 11:6), then are we saying that the added bonus we receive after the resurrection is by works?
I see a couple of options:
1. No, not at all. While works are necessary for these rewards, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, we will not receive any glory for this “bonus.” This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was ultimately responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10).
Salvation=God’s grace alone, without the aid of human effort. (Monergistic)
Rewards=God’s grace alone, fueled by necessary human effort. (Synergistic)
This presents significant problems, especially for a Protestant who believes in sola fide (salvation by faith alone—not works), for this is just the same thing that Catholic doctrine says about the relationship of grace and works with regard to salvation. Why can’t they say the same thing about salvation that we can say about rewards and say that it is of grace alone also? Do you see the problem? If not, just replace “rewards” with “salvation” in the option 1 above. Here, let me do it for you.
“While works are necessary for salvation, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, we will not receive any glory for this “bonus.” This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was ultimately responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10).
In other words, if you are going to go this direction with rewards and define “grace alone” in a synergistic way, why would you have problems with Catholic theology that does the same thing with the issue of salvation? “Grace alone” cannot mean two different things can it?
2. Yes, rewards, unlike salvation, are a result of our good works plus grace. In this, we are fully responsible for what we do or don’t do to earn them. It is both an opportunity and a motivation for us to live a life pleasing to the Lord. While the Lord gets the credit for giving us the opportunity and provides us with the strength to earn these rewards, we have the ultimate deciding factor. In this sense, we get what we earned.
Salvation=God’s grace alone, human effort cannot contribute. (Monergistic)
Rewards=God’s grace plus human effort. (Synergistic)
This is the position that I take. I think that it best evidences the Scriptural teaching on the subject. Justification is by grace alone without any regards to human effort. If human effort did play a part, grace is not grace. However, I believe that a theology of rewards must recognize that human effort plays a decisive role in the rewards we receive.
What does this mean? It means that we have an opportunity beyond anything we could ever imagine. When Christ said to store up your treasures in heaven . . . he was serious. Christians should not cop-out on this issue saying “As long as I have my salvation, I am happy. I don’t care about rewards.” This is to deny Christ’s right to use rewards to push us toward good deeds. It is to say that you are “above” Christ’s motivation.
I am very uncomfortable thinking of this in such a way as it does seem self-serving. In a way, what I am saying about rewards is very similar to what Catholics say about salvation. It is God’s grace that gives us the opportunity, but my effort is ultimately determinative.
But if God has commanded us and motived us in such a way, don’t you think we need to conform our thinking to his?
At the very least, this should help you to understand how Catholics can say that salvation is by grace alone, but human effort is necessary.
What say you? What is your theology of rewards?
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- How Do I Fit Rewards into My Grace Centered Theology? A Theology of Rewards
- Grace and Humility Together: An Illustration
- What is Grace?
- My Grace Awakening: Thank You Chuck Swindoll
- My Life: simul iustus et peccator (3)
steve moore on 06 Apr 2008 at 6:02 am #
Michael,
How do you address Ephesians in your concept of rewards, specifically ch1 where we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing, and Christ is the guarantee of our inheritance. That also along with ch3 which says we have the unfathomable riches which are ours in Christ. If we have all of eternity to try and get to the bottom of them (fathom them, search through all of them) and we cannot (they are un-fathomable), how do account for this along with rewards too? It would seem as though there clearly is something taught about rewards, their contribution to our eternal bliss will greatly pale in comparison to our inheritance.
Do you feel someone could be unhappy in heaven, or have regret that they did not earn enough rewards?
Due to an experience I had a year or two back I’ve done a lot of searching and thinking, along with some friends of mine, into this subject. There’s not a lot said about it, so it’s hard to definitively state a lot of things as many often do. I appreciate you not overstating anything thus far and would also appreciate hearing more insight with regard to your views. If you want me to write more about “what say me” then I will.
thanks,
-steve
JoanieD on 06 Apr 2008 at 7:08 am #
Wow, Michael, I am always impressed that you think these things through so thoroughly!
I am not sure that I actually have a “theology of rewards,” but I guess I could say that if I follow the commandment that Jesus gave us to love our fellow human beings, then that would naturally include behaving toward them in compassionate, loving ways that could, sometimes, involve a level of sacrifice. I don’t think I would be doing these things because I want a reward from God, but I would do those things because they naturally would “flow” from loving God. The rewards that I get may begin right here on earth. The reward is that as I behave more loving toward humans, I also get closer to God. That is reward enough for me. Perhaps the people who have shown more love to people will be “closer” somehow to Jesus in heaven and in the resurrected “era.” I can only imagine what that really means.
Joanie D.
Greg on 06 Apr 2008 at 7:59 am #
Michael,
I agree with you completely on this one. I once brought the concept of rewards in Heaven for good works here on earth up in a group discussion, and I was met only with opposition because it was a very “unfair” system. I see it as a very fair system, actually. Now that our unfathomable debt it paid off, we finally have the chance to add to our savings account!
Seth R. on 06 Apr 2008 at 9:10 am #
“When Christ said to store up your treasures in heaven . . . he was serious. Christians should not cop-out on this issue saying “As long as I have my salvation, I am happy. I don’t care about rewards.†This is to deny Christ’s right to use rewards to push us toward good deeds. It is to say that you are “above†Christ’s motivation.”
Amen. Nice to see someone putting the brakes on the out of control self-esteem movement that a lot of popular Christianity has become. To hear some people talk, you’d think that “Jesus loves me” was the beginning, middle and end of the whole story. And as for all those inconvenient “moral teachings” he declared - mere window-dressing!
Michael Ekstrand on 06 Apr 2008 at 9:26 am #
Interesting you bring this up. It was a source of no small discussion amongst some friends when reading Randy Alcorn’s Money, Possessions, and Eternity.
I haven’t thought much about this aspect of rewards, whether they are by grace or by works. But, at least for now, I would have to land with our works empowered and enabled by God’s grace. OTOH, Paul does say that we were created for good works prepared beforehand for us to do…
And it’s not a problem that seeking rewards seems self-serving. Christ told us to seek them — nothing wrong with doing what He says. Further, people *always* act in their own self-interest. It is impossible not to. Thus, seeking reward is not a sinful or “less holy” than doing something without thinking of reward.
steve moore on 06 Apr 2008 at 3:31 pm #
The concept of earned rewards is consistent with a Gospel that
promises unconditional eternal happiness. Given the description
of the blessings secured by every believer through faith, the
idea that the loss of rewards could possibly render a Christian
unhappy in heaven is patently absurd. The distinction can be
illustrated by two employers, one who threatens his employees
with severe salary cuts if they do not increase sales, and
another who offers a bonus to his employees if they do. One
group of employees is threatened with poverty; the other group is not. One should be suspicious of Evangelical leaders who ignore or minimize God’s unconditional blessings and cultivate fear of spiritual poverty in order to motivate followers to help them build their religious organizations.
djohn on 06 Apr 2008 at 3:53 pm #
Dr Kroll said.. in a recent series “Facing Your Final Job Review” “The purpose of my salvation was not just to get me to heaven. The purpose of my salvation was to create a servant who could serve the Lord all my days here on earth.
Let me read something to you from Randy Alcorn about rewards and eternality. He says, “Somewhere we’ve gotten the erroneous idea that God’s works is a dirty word. This is totally false. While He condemns works done to earn salvation, and works done to impress others, our Lord enthusiastically commends righteous works done for the right reasons.”
God created us to do good works. He has a lifetime of good works for each of us to do, and will reward us according to whether or not we do them.
Indeed, Scripture ties God’s reward giving to His very character. “God is not unjust. He will not forget your work and the love that you have shown him as you have helped His people and continue to help them.” That’s Hebrews 6:10.
So, rewards are God’s way of simply saying, “You’ve followed through. You know, good job. Well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord.”
Rewards are important to us because they confirm our salvation. You can’t get rewards unless you do the work that the Lord gives you after you’ve been saved.”
Moses was commanded to tell Pharoah 5 times to “let His people go, that they may serve Me”. I often think about what my role was in the sowing seeds for Christ.
I hadn’t thought about the rewards or benefits of serving the Lord until Dr Kroll started talking about it. I just wanted to serve because it felt right.
terry on 06 Apr 2008 at 8:51 pm #
interesting subject for sure …I once stopped to help a stranded motorist ,a older person to quickly change her flattened tire …although she offered me some money for the task I immediately refused her gracious recompense …as I left she said something that has stayed with me for many years …she said you will have many jewels in your crown …this may be true as I hadn’t thought about the whole reward thing in a way that would have led me to stop and perform the deed ….who can say with certainty as to what rewards our Lord will bestow on us in that day ….I do want to put a link to a article I read and have looked at the comments to the article …interesting to say the least .can you pick out the Christians in this group of people ? thanks for this site Micheal and the many thoughtful subjects you bring to light …http://www.alternet.org/stories/80976/?comments=view&cID=874951&pID=873357#c874951g
terry on 06 Apr 2008 at 8:59 pm #
Hi Michael ..I am sorry I posted with a link to a news article and your site marked it as spam …I guess I don’t understand this whole enet thing very well …I am sorry .thanks as I do love the site and the many subjects you bring up .you will have many jewels in your crown .
Jugulum on 07 Apr 2008 at 8:48 am #
In The Weight of Glory, C.S. Lewis wrote on the oddness of the idea of “rewards” in Christianity. Doesn’t that seem self-serving? Almost mercenary?
I found his reflections to be deep, thrilling, and passion-instilling:
I’m not sure how these thoughts connect with the idea of some Christians receiving greater reward. But it’s an important component, I think.
JoanieD on 07 Apr 2008 at 9:01 am #
Jugulum, I like that quotation from C.S. Lewis very much.
Regarding the idea of some Christians receiving greater reward…I think that when God creates the new heavens, new earth and we are given resurrection bodies, some people will have a “closer position” to Jesus than others. I know it seems strange to talk about this, but there do seem to be passages that would indicate this is true. Jesus seemed to tell us we may be surprised at who is first and who is last at his banquet table too. It’s mind-boggling to even begin to consider all of this, thinking about all the people through all the centuries who have had faith and hope in Jesus. But, someday we will understand.
Joanie D.
Susan on 07 Apr 2008 at 9:42 am #
I was so happy to see that you had posted on this subject because it is something I’ve given quite a bit of thought to in recent years…. yet heard very little teaching on.
When you look at the examples of faith in Hebrews you see that those who were commended were “looking forward” to God’s city. They were investing in that future because they believed that God is faithful in keeping His promises (rewards included). It was said of Moses that “He regarded abuse suffered for Christ to be greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for his eyes were FIXED ON THE REWARD”.
I see those who accomplish much in the name of Christ as those who have their gaze fixed on that future reward and truly want to invest in it, rather than in this world. A very important factor in this sort of investing is spreading the gospel and “winning souls”. I have become highly motivated by this way of thinking. I think that God has turned my whole value system around….. reoriented my thinking toward His values…( still in process!).
I definitely believe that God WANTS us to be motivated by the promise of reward for our good deeds… especially as they lead others to Christ. Both the laborers and the harvesters are promised reward!
Awesome topic!
Thomas Twitchell on 07 Apr 2008 at 10:49 am #
Well, if we are walking after the Servant we do not work for reward: Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and the one who formed him: “Ask me of things to come; will you command me concerning my children and the work of my hands? I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,” says the Lord of hosts…Let this mind be in you…he has seated us with him in the heavenly realm.
The kingdom and the heavenly rewards are already yours in Christ.
And seeing as 1 Cor. 3:12-15 is speaking of teachers in the church whose doctrine will be tested, such that the day can be any day, and not just the Day, Paul is speaking of the church as it is lead and taught by its leadership and should not be disconnected from its context. See chapter 4 where Paul continues his admonishments about not going beyond what is written, restricting them to teaching only what they had received and warning them that the day was coming when he (Paul) would come and put their teaching to the flaming sword of God’s word. Punishment was on its way. What remains is that which is precious: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change…For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. If you work any good it is a gift, deserving no reward, but rewarded nonetheless: Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
There is a gross difficiency in your definition of grace if by grace you do not mean gifting. Grace is not some occult tool that we yield, as is found Roman Catholicism. To put grace in its proper perspective: Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith…for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure…So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ…faith is sure and certain: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible… Faith never fails: For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
It is by gifting that faith is increased and by faith that the works are done so that no one can boast. The things that are done then are purely monergistic. But just as in salvation we do what has been born in us. For that we have no right to reward as payment for our labor, but instead it is the Fathers good pleasure to give us the kingdom, which includes the works that we do. Why? Because we are his children and if children, heirs, co-heirs with Christ. What more would you want?
This does not mean that there is “fairness” in God. For he has set thrones upon which only those chosen by the Father will sit. No man has anything other than what has been given him from above and no man can work any good except that which the Father has given to be worked from before the beginning of time.
Thomas Twitchell on 07 Apr 2008 at 10:51 am #
If you define grace as a tool, you’ve slipped into Law and turned God’s grace into talismanism, licentious self-seeking, exactly what Paul was condemning as a different Gospel. Galatians 3 tells us that it is by the work of the Spirit that anything is done in us, for the righteous will live by faith. Faith is a gift, and everything not done by faith is sin. And faith always does that thing it was sent to do, without fail, or it is not faith at all. No synergism. But we do work the works of God, just as Jesus did not do his own works, but the work of him who sent him. It is by the virtue of the Seed’s finished work, that any work that we do is done and it has been perfected by him. It is his good that works in us both the willing and the doing of his choosing.
So what remains is not whether you can improve your eternal estate, for that was fixed by the Father before time. The question is, if you are not being stirred to good works, why? You will do them if you are a believer, without doubt. If you’re doubting that the Father is pleased to give you the kingdom, who has bewitched you, O foolish Galatians! Do what ever good your hands find to do, as to the Lord, in faith.
Ruben on 07 Apr 2008 at 11:40 am #
One passage that has always challenged “sola fide” to me is the one of the final judgement and the Lord separates the sheep from the goats not because of their faith but based on the way they treated the little ones who represent Him. My personal take is that faith and works are one organism, you can’t have works without faith behind it and you can’t have faith without works to support it.
ben on 07 Apr 2008 at 11:53 am #
I often wonder if we read the ‘treasures in heaven’ reference too personally. Matthew consistently refers to God’s kingdom or God’s dominion as the ‘kingdom of heaven.’ It seems to me that the passage referring to the ‘treasures in heaven’ is more about investing in the Kingdom of God (or Heaven for Matthew) than it is about doing good things so I will have jewels in my own personal crown or an extra big mansion in the sky. It makes more sense for Jesus to be extolling us to invest in the kingdom than it does for him to be giving the purely prudent advice of ‘invest in the investment that will give you the most long term gain.’
Alden on 07 Apr 2008 at 12:48 pm #
Ben has an interesting point; I think we often tend to read Scripture too individualistically.
I think Thomas has a good point: Any attempt to rely on “good works” - not that they aren’t an essential part of the Christian life - runs into problems. Galatians 3:3 - “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”
And, someone already mentioned Ephesians; in Eph 2:8,9 we see a contrast, that we don’t get credit for good works, but that God provides good works for us to do. Paul isn’t drawing a distinction between salvation and the Christian life here, he seems to see it as one package. As a pastor of mine used to say, “the way in is the way on.”
Susan on 07 Apr 2008 at 1:08 pm #
Ben, yes, we are to invest in His kingdom. The question is then: How do we invest in it? And, there is the promise of personal reward: “but EACH (sounds individual to me Alden!) will receive HIS reward according to HIS work.” I don’t think that we are told much about exactly what the rewards will be (probably because the future “economy” will be so different from what we now know that we wouldn’t understand it much anyway…. the things valuable in heaven aren’t necessarily the things we value now).
Thomas Twitchell,
I don’t see 1 Cor. 3:12-15 as talking about “teachers in the church who’s doctrine will be tested” as you have stated. You need to look back to the earlier context of that passage (3:1-11, as well as chapter 1: 10-2:16).
The problem in the Corinthian Church that Paul was addressing had to do with their tendency to align themselves falsely with their culture, which placed a very high value on those who became known for their words of wisdom. In that culture those who had great stature were those who were known as great orators. Others would seek to gain stature by aligning themselves with these favored orators.
The Corinthians were seeking to do the same thing in the church. Some would brag that they “were of Apollos”, others that they “were of Paul” etc.. This was causing division in the church. The problem here was NOT the teaching of false doctrine by the teachers!
Paul admonished the Corinthians saying that they were “acting like babies’ essentially—”still influenced by the flesh”. He went on to say(v.5-9) that they were missing the point. He told them that he and Apollos were merely servants of the ministry God gave them, each having had different rolls, but it wasn’t THEY who mattered but GOD who caused the growth. In other words: “Hey guys, stop fighting over US, we don’t matter, it’s not our ‘wisdom’ that matters, it’s GOD who worked through us! Don’t divide over the Who’s following Who thing!”
Then Paul says it’s not which man you follow that matters but HOW YOU BUILD ON THE FOUNDATION WE LAYED THAT MATTERS! Paul is NOT addressing false teachers. He is addressing “brothers and sisters” (v.3:1)
The above is the context for: “If ANYONE builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each builder’s work will be plainly seen, for the Day will make it clear, because it will be revealed by fire. (Judgement Day, not any ol’ day) And the fire will test what kind of WORK (not whether their teaching was doctrinally correct) each has DONE. IF WHAT SOMEONE HAS BUILT SURVIVES, HE WILL RECEIVE A REWARD. If someone’s work is BURNED UP (yes it’s possible to be a believer in this camp… I think the thief on the cross will see his works burn…. and plenty of others who knew Christ for years but only invested in this world), he will SUFFER LOSS (Warning!). He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” I see this as a clear admonition to all believers to be careful HOW they build. It’s possible to squander your life away. You have suggested that we will automatically do the good works. If it were all automatic then I don’t think Christ would have commanded that we “lay up treasure in heaven”. He knew that our tendency would be to lay up treasure on earth!
Alden on 07 Apr 2008 at 2:30 pm #
Susan, you are, I believe, quoting from Matthew 16?
The reward here appears to be salvation; I don’t think we can read anything further into this passage.
In Romans 4, Paul draws a parallel with Abraham, whose “work” was merely to believe God.
Certainly, there are individual benefits to the “reward;” however, I do think a modern reading of Scripture often individualizes it too much. Is my reward different from yours? Wood, hay & stubble merely disappears in flames; is what survives a result of our own efforts, or rather what has been done in us by Christ as a result of a life lived in faith?
Susan on 07 Apr 2008 at 2:33 pm #
Alden, the problem with the “foolish Galatians” is that they had slipped back into a self-righteous mindset. They needed to be reminded that their SALVATION was earned by Christ on the cross.
The Galatians were reverting to trusting the law for their salvation. “But now that you have come to know God(or rather be known by God), how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless basic forces? Do you want to be enslaved to them all over again? YOU ARE OBSERVING RELIGIOUS DAYS and months and seasons and years.” Gal. 4:9-10 The Galatians were influenced by the Judaizers (those who tried to force observance of the Mosaic law on Gentile converts to Christianity). Note from NET Bible Gal. 4:10
Paul warns them to “Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to a yolk of slavery” Gal 5:1-12 “You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!…”. Paul is not saying “don’t seek reward from God”, that is not the subject he is addressing. He is saying, “you didn’t earn your salvation by keeping the law, so why are you returning to the practice of the law which couldn’t save you in the first place. You have Christ now—you only need to have faith in Him.
Galatians 5:22-25 tells what the fruit of the Spirit is. This fruit is wrought in us by the Spirit over time (sanctification)—- we are not instructed to work the fruit of the spirit in ourselves. This fruit is NOT good works.
THEN, in vs. 6:6-10, Paul introduces the principle of SOWING and REAPING…. v.9 “So we must not grow weary in DOING GOOD, for in due time WE WILL REAP, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith.”
So, Paul concludes by telling the Galatians to do good deeds— they will thus reap!
Susan on 07 Apr 2008 at 3:03 pm #
Alden, Paul tells us in Romans that Abraham was JUSTIFIED by faith not by works (keeping the law). He’s not making the statement that we don’t need to do good works after our justification by faith.
Alden on 07 Apr 2008 at 3:23 pm #
Susan, I understand the problem with the Galatians. I don’t believe you can limit the issue to salvation in the way you’re looking at it; taking Paul as a whole, I don’t think he had a transactional view of righteousness, justification or salvation.
I am certainly not against good works; however, any attempt at a “good work” that you could look back at and say, “see what I’ve done!” is in danger of loss by fire. Paul tells us, “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Do we get “credit” for these? Perhaps, but they, too, are gifts of grace.
I’ve seen way too many people weighed down by heavy loads put on them by churches. Even though “salvation” is not the issue, self-righteousness in the guise of good works and rewards is the issue. It’s incredibly destructive, and Paul’s words to the Galatians are on point. The Gospel is more than just getting your ticket into Heaven (if it is about that at all).
The question is still valid: “After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?†Is your goal merely life after death, or being made into the image of Christ?
Alden on 07 Apr 2008 at 3:24 pm #
I apologize for monopolizing the conversation; I’ll take a break now…
Susan on 07 Apr 2008 at 4:28 pm #
Alden, assuming that the goal is salvation (forgiveness, eternal life) personally I’m not trying to obtain it by good works. Neither am I trying to obtain Christlikeness by good works. Becoming like Christ is a work of the Holy Spirit in me. I can apply effort, by renewing my mind in God’s word, searching the scripture, being a “doer of the word, not merely a hearer”, avoiding sin,and obeying the commands of scripture. The important thing to understand here is that doing these good things, and doing good works is not to cause us to think that we are more deserving of God’s grace. I don’t deserve the forgiveness of Christ no matter how many good works I do.
I think that we would agree on several points. I agree that good works should never be the basis for boasting, or thinking that we have arrived.
I agree that we were created for good works, and that without God’s Spirit within us we could not preform any lasting good works (gold, silver etc.). It is His gracious work within me which allows me to be able to do anything of true eternal value.
I agree that self righteousness can be a big problem in the modern day church, or the problem of an individual’s own misunderstanding. I’ve heard it said that we should “preach the gospel to ourselves every day” (I read The Discipline of Grace by Jerry Bridges).
I don’t however, look at hoping to lay up treasure in heaven, as being weighed down by a heavy load. It has certainly never felt like that to me. My motivation lies in wanting to invest in something worthwhile and lasting. If God didn’t want us to be a bit tantalized with the promise of reward I don’t think He would have mentioned it. I am also highly motivated by my growing love for Jesus, and for the lost.
I kind of get the impression that you don’t believe that human effort has ANY place in the Christian’s life (or maybe that’s T. T’.s angle). We are told to “work out our salvation”. I’m not sure if you would disagree with me here or not.
The topic at hand though is rewards. I think that you are confusing attempting to lay up treasure in heaven (yes purposely, and with effort applied) with self-righteousness. While it’s possible that a person might seek future reward as a form of self-righteousness, I do believe that the two can be separated. I don’t consider myself to be a better person because I’m trying to invest in my future. I just want to know that when I get there I’ll hopefully hear something along the lines of “well done good and faithful servant”, and receive whatever reward there might be. I definitely believe that what we do here and now will matter eternally.
I think that we’ve been programed to believe that seeking reward is wrong. Seeking reward from God is not wrong. It is not selfish to seek reward from God. In fact, I find that the more I’ve turned my focus toward Christ, and sought to invest in His kingdom, the less self-centered I’ve become. The primary way that I seek to invest is by “taking others with me”.
Jugulum on 07 Apr 2008 at 4:30 pm #
** Jugulum looks back at his comments in other recent posts. **
Oh, are we no supposed to do that? My bad.
Mike Leake on 07 Apr 2008 at 4:30 pm #
Here is my theology of rewards (please feel free to critique it b/c it is always reforming):
The greatest reward is God Himself. I would imagine that eternity is the unveiling of the riches of Christ. If you could picture heaven in days (which you really can not) then I would say that each day is an unfolding of who God is. Borrowing and idea from Sam Storms, each day God will stretch our capacity for mind-blowing joy in Him, and then fill it with Himself until it is overflowing, and then again stretch it, and then fill it to overflowing,…for all of eternity.
Now, what does rewards have to do with that. If I go into heaven with a very small view of God, I do not think that I will be instantly changed so that I now am able to understand and exhaust the inexhaustible. This “expanding” process will take place, probably from where I am at. So, my reward is that I will be able to enjoy more of God from the outset. So that for all of eternity I am either a step or two ahead or behind in my enjoyment of God than that of other believers.
How does this happen? I tend to agree that we are justified monergestically and sanctified synergestically.
Susan on 07 Apr 2008 at 4:47 pm #
LOL Jugulum! I feel guilty now.
Actually, I sure wish Michael would take over at this point, I’m exhausted.
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 5:39 pm #
CMP: I think you have offered a pretty fair (if not entirely comprehensive) assessment of how we, as Catholics, view grace. The terms synergism and monergism aren’t particularly useful to Catholics, though, as I think both limit the functions of grace within the scope of a Christian life. But thanks for your work on that–it’s helps me understand it all a bit better!
CMP states: “Justification is by grace alone without any regards to human effort.”
This is not entirely foreign to us on this side of the Tiber. Prevenient grace, I believe, is a term we share with our Wesleyan brethren. This sort of initiating grace could even be termed “monergistic,” I suppose, as we fully believe that there is nothing we do to generate it.
However, especially within the Augustinian tradition, while fully recognizing the monergistic quality of God’s initiating grace, one can not help but realize a certain point at which we do, in fact, become normatively cooperative.
We are all saved by grace, perhaps on that much we all agree. Grace is, indeed, a gift. Unearned. Undeserved. Yet, at least for us as Catholics, we believe as St. Paul teaches (2 Corinthians 6) that we can refuse this gift by receiving it in vain through our own free will or we can respond in faith and obedience. The cooperative response of faith and obedience is also a function of grace.
Is monersynergisim even a word?
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 6:01 pm #
TT offered: “There is a gross difficiency in your definition of grace if by grace you do not mean gifting. Grace is not some occult tool that we yield, as is found Roman Catholicism.”
I would offer, in turn, that there may be a gross deficiency in your understanding of the Catholic Church. Hopefully, I can help. . .
From paragraph 1996 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”
Despite your assertion to the contrary, the Catholic Church does not teach that grace is a tool. Just as you have affirm, it is a gift. It is free offering of the very life of God at work in us. This, again, from the Catechism:
“Grace is a participation in the life of God. . .This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature. The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.”
And as far as “yielding” grace is concerned. . .We no more “yield” grace from God than children yield love from their parents. Yet, we can, as Christ teaches knock and seek Him and His good gifts. In the same way, my children do not earn, yeild, or cause me to love them but when they climb up on my lap and ask for a kiss, I lovingly grant them the goodness they are seeking. This is very much in line with the Catholic idea of grace.
Jugulum on 07 Apr 2008 at 6:17 pm #
Question for discussion on 2 Cor. 6:1.
Is the grace there being received by all human (some of whom receive it in vain)? That is, does “receive in vain” actually mean “reject”? Or is it actually being received by the Corinthians, but in a way is in vain?
My layman’s glance at Strong’s definition of “receive” for that verse suggests that “receive” there means actual acceptance of God’s grace, or welcoming.
JFrances, you seem to take “receive in vain” as “reject”. Or, perhaps as the passive kind of acceptance that just means, we’re the target of something God sends our way. But does that work here? Or does the word mean something like “welcome”?
Hmm. I’ll give an illustration of the difference I’m seeing. Suppose a tossing popcorn to a friend for him to catch in his mouth. In JFrances’ version, my friend is stubbornly keeping his mouth shut and letting it hit him in the face. And that’s “receiving” the popcorn, but “in vain”. Or, does “receiving” the popcorn involve welcoming it? Opening your mouth to catch it?
What I’m not sure of is, what does it mean to receive the grace “in vain” here? Does that mean, such a person is lost? Or something else? I’m not familiar enough with the passage to say quickly, so it would take more study.
Any thoughts?
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 6:25 pm #
And since this is actually a post about reward (aka merit), and since the Catholic Church is notorious for having a skewed (unorthodox, heretical, “occult”) idea of God rewarding us, I thought I would offer up the official teaching of the Church on this topic. And I presume it may be better received if I say, in advance, it has St. Augustine’s handwriting all over it! Here goes (CCC paragraphs 2006-2011):
“You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.59″
2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.”60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”62
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63
Thomas Twitchell on 07 Apr 2008 at 7:21 pm #
Susan-
What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building…I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
Though adelphoi in the opening of this and other letters may be translated as brothers and sisters, it is not necessary. Notice the contrast/comparison that Paul is drawing. He is not saying that men are necessarily saying that they are calling themselves after Paul or Apollos. It is to say, so what, we are servants just like you. Notice the “building.” As Paul is to the leaders, so too, the leaders are to their flock. (Here is the catch, those things that belong to teachers also have bearing on followers.) The building is the church, which, when tested needs to be built upon that pattern (Paul to Timothy) which is layed, which is Christ. It is Christ’s doctrine. And builders must be careful to select and build with the proper doctrine, Christ’s church. It is the church which will be tested and in that the worth of the builders matterials will be exposed. It is not easy to tell where Paul transitions into the general teaching for Corinth, but it is all directed at the leadership for application in governing the church. Look back over Corinthians and see if it is not about governance of the church. See how many times it is teaching, governance, and teachers responsibilities for mananging the flock that are the focus and I think you will get the idea. Again, this is not to say that there is not general application. But, the day of which Paul speaks is not first the Day of Judgement, but any time of trial and testing or of refinement such as Paul is doing in the letter and which he threatens either harshness or promises gentleness upon their reception of his written instruction. It is interesting that Paul would begin his letter with: …you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ… if he was thinking that we would not stand blameless before the Lord but would suffer a final fire or purification on that day. How is it that we would be blameless if we’re not, if indeed the day of testing is the Eschaton?
I do not doubt that Corinthians has personal application to our own lives. Lord knows how many times my shanty has been burned down only to find a few nails were worth anything.
Here are a couple of good Scriptures on the monergistic work of God in our santification, and therefore our reward: For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.
A wonderful passage on Paul’s one aim. “…with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.” The sole soul source of our approved works that will be rewarded.
And out of 1 Corinthians: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
It there is any praise, any glory, it belongs to God. Our truest reward is that we can but lay his grace gifts, the crowns and rewards at his feet, for he alone deserves them.
Thomas Twitchell on 07 Apr 2008 at 8:03 pm #
Grace = gift. It is not a tool. It itself is not the thing. Faith is a grace = faith is a gift. Being a gift, faith merits nothing, but does that thing which it believes.
Therefore, the Catholic position is no better than shamanism. Swing the censor and out comes the genie of reward. It is simply the occult.
It is God who works in us and the righteousness that is rewarded is Christ’s and not our own. But, SF’s done a service in showing the distinct difference between Romanism and Christianity.
Christianity fully rejects the comingling of the nature of God and of man. Infused grace is a Roman doctrine and has its roots in shamanistic mysticism. We do not ever experience union with the divine as this Catholic doctrine would have us believe.
“Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.”
It is not just initiative which is of him alone, all of eternal life is in and of him. What is striking about the above statement by JF is that it is exactly what the Word Faith conjurors say. It is the prosperity gospel, “three back flips and a hallel and the prize is yours. It is garbage. Jesus is the author, archegos; the first in, and the telieotes, the finisher of our faith; the whole thing, justification and sanctification. This statement defines well why we had to separate in the protestation. It is vile, occult teaching.
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 8:07 pm #
Jug poses: “What I’m not sure of is, what does it mean to receive the grace “in vain†here? ”
Based on my own exegetical readings, I have always understood that St. Paul is meaning to refuse the gift. Plus, I did a little additional looking and found this:
Strong’s κενός (G2756) has the Biblical usage (when referring to men) to mean: 1) empty handed 2) without a gift
Other Biblical usages include: containing nothing, without effect, of no purpose
From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
“of refusal to receive it, 2Cr 6:1″
Thomas Twitchell on 07 Apr 2008 at 8:13 pm #
Jugulum- 2 Cor. 6:1
Connect it back to the end of Chp 5. Having recieved the new creation. We should then work together with it, unless of course we have received it in vain.
So there is this: We have spoken freely to you…
If freely we have received then freely we give. He has entrusted to us the ministry by which we were reconciled, therefore go reconciling others… unless of course it was recieved in vain.
Vain: kenos- metaph. destitute of spiritual wealth, of one who boasts of his faith as a transcendent possession, yet is without the fruits of faith
dig it?
Jugulum on 07 Apr 2008 at 8:46 pm #
JFrances,
I assumed that you take it that way; I said, “you seem to take “receive in vain†as “reject—. I raised the question for discussion.
I raised the question because of the data I pointed out that seems to argue against your reading. Particularly, the Strong’s definition of the word for “receive”–the apparent meaning of “welcoming/accepting”. TT’s suggestion makes sense of this; yours does not, as far as I can see.
I realize that Strong’s isn’t necessarily academically rigorous, and it’s not going to provide enough information for a final conclusion on what kind of usages are possible. But, if your exegetical readings led you to conclude otherwise, what was the basis on which you determined that you can take “receive in vain” as “reject”? Did you find parallel usages elsewhere?
OK, I just took the time to use the free program eSword to scan through the Biblical occurences of the word “dechomai” (receive). There’s nothing close to what you’re suggesting. Every use seems to be an active, particular acceptance of what is being given. Jesus talks about “receiving the little children”. Paul even talks about “taking the helmet of salvation” (Eph 6:17), and the only difference in the form of the verb is that the mood is imperative there instead of infinitive! He also says of unbelievers, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
So, what about your exegetical readings indicates that “receive in vain” actually means “refuse to receive”, as opposed to “receive uselessly”?
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 9:01 pm #
TT writes: “Christianity fully rejects the comingling of the nature of God and of man.”
St. Peter writes: “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
TT writes: “It is God who works in us and the righteousness that is rewarded is Christ’s and not our own.”
This is, in fact, a Catholic position. What you have written here is almost verbatim from the quotation of St. Augustine I cited in the Catechism. However, I think your particular notion would preclude you from the traditional Christian understanding that, as St. Paul writes, “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9). While God gets the glory, we do, in fact, participate in his work and, by His grace, we are promised a share in His Life:
“God will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good. . .” (Romans 2)
TT writes: It is the prosperity gospel, “three back flips and a hallel and the prize is yours. It is garbage.”
I would suggest you reread the quotation you cited:
“These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer.”
This is not magic. This is not shamanism (which I wonder if are as knowledgable about as you are about Catholicsim) nor occultic tactics nor the name and claim it schema that you are suggesting it is. Instead, it is the children of God asking the Almighty Creator, their Father, for the good things he has to give, according to His will.
This is how we are taught by our Savior to pray.
Further, the fruit and reward of our faith, work, suffering and supplication is not a “a vile, occultic teaching.” It is the promise of our Lord, about which St. Paul writes clearly: “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Romans 8:17).
C Michael Patton on 07 Apr 2008 at 9:45 pm #
Although I have not kept up on the comments much, I have heard that some of my Protestant friends are getting out of line. Please remain respectful. This does not mean agree, but defend your position with gentleness and respect. Dwell on both.
There are plenty of blogs where you can go where these are not the rules, but not here.
GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to be respectful.
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 10:12 pm #
Jug asks: “So, what about your exegetical readings indicates that “receive in vain†actually means “refuse to receiveâ€, as opposed to “receive uselesslyâ€?”
This question clarifies for me what you are asking. . .
St. Thomas Aquinas writes at length about the different possibilities in how we receive grace. He outlines, within his writings (particularly in his Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica) the idea of ordinary and extraordinary grace and our ability or inability to resist such graces respectively.
In the case of ordinary grace Thomas writes (Contra Gentiles), “Since this is in the power of free will [namely] to impede or not to impede the reception of grace, not wrongly is it charged as a fault against him who sets up an impediment to the reception of grace. For God, so far as is in Him, is ready to give grace to all. . . but they alone are deprived of grace who set up an impediment to grace in themselves.”
This is, in part, how I have come to understand St. Paul’s exhortation in 2 Cor. 6:1. Obviously, within the context of extraordinary grace (prevenient grace), which makes known to us the Truth, we can not refuse it. However, in the case of ordinary grace, we do have the option to impede it through the hardness of our hearts.
So, we must discern what sort of grace St. Paul is talking about? I would argue, as I believe is the understanding of most classical theologians, that St. Paul is referring to the sort of grace with which we can either cooperate or resist. Otherwise, his exhortation would make no sense.
The discrepancy of “refuse to receive” versus “recieve uselessly” is not unimportant, however, I’m not sure the end regarding God’s offering of grace is that different in such that I would not bet the farm on one or the other. The truth of the matter is that δέχομαι (receive) according to Biblical usages can mean, as you have suggested, “to welcome” as well as “to take hold of” and “not to refuse intercourse or friendship.” Strong’s simply isn’t conclusive.
Now, what I believe does help my reading beyond Strong’s or other lexicon citations is comparing the concept of refusing grace (or our ability to impede grace working in our lives) with the positive command of God throughout Scripture for repentance. In both cases, there is an element of responsibility on our part to cooperate and act in obedience.
This is the fundamental point of my mentioning 2 Cor. 6:1 in the first place. Do we or do we not receive God’s grace in freedom? I realize, too, of course that this is also a bright and shiny point of contention between strict Calvinists and other Protestants. I doubt it we’ll have happy ending of it here!
JFrances on 07 Apr 2008 at 10:29 pm #
To round out our citation of the BLB Biblical usage for the word κενός. . .within the context of Scripture “vain” can mean:
1) empty, vain, devoid of truth
a) of places, vessels, etc. which contain nothing
b) of men
1) empty handed
2) without a gift
c) metaph. destitute of spiritual wealth, of one who boasts of his faith as a transcendent possession, yet is without the fruits of faith
d) metaph. of endeavours, labours, acts, which result in nothing, vain, fruitless, without effect
1) vain of no purpose
What makes c) work best? And further, why does c) require only recieving grace “uselessly” (fruitlessly, etc.) rather than Vine’s meaning “of refusal to receive it, 2Cr 6:1.” Can the two meanings not both work to mean that through our own free choice, we reject the work of grace in our lives?
Susan on 08 Apr 2008 at 1:18 pm #
Thomas and Alden, I rarely look at commentary of any sort, but I did this morning. What I found in the Bible Background Commentary confirmed what I said to you yesterday. There existed a problem of division in the church of Corinth because people were clamoring to align themselves with the “best leader” in order to insure their own status. Paul said in effect that that was fleshly. They needed to follow God Himself, the true source of wisdom (Christ and Him crucified), not people (who’s true nature would not be known for sure until the day of judgement).
The building is indeed the church, or as I read, more specifically—the people of the church.
None of the commentaries I read stated that the problem Paul was confronting in these first few chapters was “false doctrine” as you have stated.
Also I found that the final judgement was indeed what was referred to here. Paul did know that he would stand blameless before Christ, but he also understood that his deeds would be tested…. burned, to determine what would remain. The discussion of rewards here has to do with the judgment of the sheep (not of sin—which, for believers, has been forgiven). Believers will be tested as to the lasting value of their works. The reason for this testing is to determine rewards. There are these two separate aspects of final judgement. You seem to think that the deeds of believers will not be judged in the final judgement? I read some commentary by MacArthur on this.
Matt. 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His Angels, and then He will REWARD EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO WHAT HE HAS DONE.
Rev. 22:12 (Look! I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to pay EACH ONE according to what he has done! …….)
Notice that these rewards are given to believers AFTER the Great White Throne.
It would be a shame to miss out on the reward of Christ to believers because you don’t see it as based on individual behavior so you don’t care now, when you actually have the opportunity to do something about it.
Another silly way to think: “Oh well, I don’t care about a crown, I’d be throwing at Jesus feet anyway.”
I think that the rewards are not just literal crowns and jewels. As I said before, we will not really know what the rewards are until we receive them.
Susan on 09 Apr 2008 at 2:47 pm #
John Piper has a great article on the subject of rewards: (www.desiringgod.org), entitled:
You Cannot Please God If You Do Not Come To Him Looking For Reward
John advocates, from scripture, “Christian Hedonism”…… seeking happiness through seeking rewards from Christ!
JoanieD on 09 Apr 2008 at 6:05 pm #
http://tinyurl.com/2yem9m
(The original URL is long and went off the side of the monitor. so I used Tiny URL there. But it IS John Piper’s webpage.)
This article by John Piper is talking about the same thing, though I see it’s not titled the same as you wrote.
I do like what he says there, though I don’t always agree with John Piper. Thanks, Susan.
Joanie D.
Thomas Twitchell on 09 Apr 2008 at 6:06 pm #
I wouldn’t expect it to be found in many commentaries. It is not considered a pastoral epistle, unfortunately. I think the division is a false category. Let me put it the pastoral sense that Paul puts it to Timothy, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” so, in any case, every epistle is a Pastoral epistle and all, as far as I know, were sent to the leaders of the church for dissemination.
But some commentaries make statements similar to mine: On the other hand…luxury, pride, vanity, effeminacy, insatiable covetousness, and ambition; so they had found their way even into the Church itself, so that discipline was greatly relaxed. Nay more, purity of doctrine had already begun to decline, so that the main article of religion — the resurrection of the dead — was called in question…Such are Satan’s usual artifices. If he cannot prevent the progress of doctrine, he creeps forward secretly to make an attack upon it: if he cannot by direct falsehoods suppress it, so as to prevent it from coming forth to light, he digs secret mines for its overthrow; and in fine, if he cannot alienate men’s minds from it, he leads them by little and little to deviate from it…Besides, he (Paul) must, in any other view, be regarded as wasting many words in disputing against those absurd teachers and prating orators. He censures their ambition; he reproves them for transforming the gospel into human philosophy; he shows that they are destitute of the efficacy of the Spirit, inasmuch as they are taken up with mere ornaments of speech, and seek after a mere dead letter; but not a word is there as to a single false doctrine. Hence I conclude that they were persons who did not openly take away any thing from the substance of the gospel, but, as they burned with a misdirected eagerness for distinction, I am of opinion that, with the view of making themselves admired, they contrived a new method of teaching, at variance with the simplicity of Christ…Farther, no one will ever be qualified for teaching that has not first himself tasted the influence of the gospel, so as to speak not so much with the mouth, as with the dispositions of the heart. Hence, those that are not regenerated by the Spirit of God —not having felt inwardly the influence of the gospel, and know not what is meant when it is said that we must become new creatures, (John 3:7) have a dead preaching, whereas it ought to be lively and efficacious; and, with the view of playing off their part, they disfigure the gospel by painting it over, so as to make it a sort of worldly philosophy…Such were the facilities afforded to the false apostles for adulterating the doctrine of Christ among them; for adulterated it is, when its native simplicity is stained, and in a manner painted over, so as to differ nothing from worldly philosophy. Hence, to suit the taste of the Corinthians, they seasoned their preaching in such a way that the true savor of the gospel was destroyed. We are now in possession of the design that Paul had in view in writing this Epistle. I shall now take in the sum of the argument, by noting down briefly the particular heads of discourse…
For we are fellow-laborers with God. Here is the best argument. It is the Lord’s work that we are employed in, and it is to him that we have devoted our labors: hence, as he is faithful and just, he will not disappoint us of our reward. That man, accordingly, is mistaken who looks to men, or depends merely on their remuneration. Here we have an admirable commendation of the ministry — that while God could accomplish the work entirely himself, he calls us, puny mortals, “Poures vers de terre;†— “Mere worms of the dust.†to be as it were his coadjutors, and makes use of us as instruments. As to the perversion of this statement by the Papists, for supporting their system of free-will, it is beyond measure silly, for Paul
Thomas Twitchell on 09 Apr 2008 at 6:14 pm #
continued- for Paul shows here, not what men can effect by their natural powers, but what the Lord accomplishes through means of them by his grace. As to the exposition given by some — that Paul, being God’s workman, was a fellow-workman with his colleagues, that is, with the other teachers — it appears to me harsh and forced, and there is nothing whatever in the case that shuts us up to have recourse to that refinement. For it corresponds admirably with the Apostle’s design to understand him to mean, that, while it is peculiarly the work of God to build his temple, or cultivate his vineyard, he calls forth ministers to be fellow-laborers, by means of whom He alone works; but, at the same time, in such a way, that they in their turn labor in common with him. As to the reward of works, consult my Institutes- John Calvin
So, Susan, I am not alone in thinking that the primary target of Paul in addressing the paritisan bickering at Corinth was the leadership. I think that it is perfectly clear here that what Paul says accords with Ephesians in saying that it is to the leadership whom is given the task of building upon the foundation. So, contrary to JFrances, first the co-laborers are no the church at large, but those particularly called to ministry. And second, as Calvin so nicely says it is an absurd Papist doctrine of free-will that takes and makes the divine nature one with man’s nature in such a way that the co-laboring is one of cooperation, rather than God operating man as is stated in: For it is he who works in you both the willing and the doing…
Thomas Twitchell on 09 Apr 2008 at 6:28 pm #
“Oh well, I don’t care about a crown, I’d be throwing at Jesus feet anyway.â€
This is a silly way to look at it. All of our works are done from a willing heart that is diligent for the things of the Lord. From the first to the last, in the initial and continuing work of the Holy Spirit, we care to do that which is given to us to do because it is his work, and not ours.
As to the timing of the GWTJ, then rewards… well, I don’t know that you can temporalized the sequence the way you have done.
Thomas Twitchell on 09 Apr 2008 at 6:39 pm #
Oh, as side note Susan, Calvin also saw, as I understand the text, that the day is the “touch of the Spirit”. I think that Paul makes it quite clear that he is coming to them in judgement in the power of the Spirit. Calvin mentions among those who time has tested their doctrine and found it wood, hay and stubble, no less than Augustine, who he held in the hightest esteem. To their faults he says they were tested by the fire of the Spirit.
I do not doubt that there will be such a testing at the end and the revealing by the light of God’s coming. But, each will recieve his reward. Only that which is false will be lost, not that which is the work of God.
JFrances on 09 Apr 2008 at 10:20 pm #
TT: “So, contrary to JFrances, first the co-laborers are no the church at large, but those particularly called to ministry. And second, as Calvin so nicely says it is an absurd Papist doctrine of free-will that takes and makes the divine nature one with man’s nature in such a way that the co-laboring is one of cooperation, rather than God operating man as is stated in: For it is he who works in you both the willing and the doing…”
TT, you are not contradicting me regarding 1 Corinthians. I understand the context of St. Paul’s letter and I wholly agree that St. Paul is recognizing the ordained ministry as God’s coworkers. I’m not sure the point you are trying to make. There are the workers and there is the field. Yet even given these particularities, Scripture fully allows for man to cooperatively participate in the work of God. This is the point I was making. As a Catholic, I have a very well formed appreciation for those in the ordained ministry and the huge responsibility they have to labor in the field.
As for the “absurd Papist doctrine of free-will. . .â€
I am also well acquainted with the notion that whatever good I will or accomplish is, indeed, God working in me. Calvinists have no monopoly on this Scripture or this truth. From Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to Augstine and Aquinas, great lovers of Christ have heralded the unmerited grace God lavishes upon his children to do His will. Yet, these same lovers, in the great tradition of the Church, have also realized the mysterious truth that within the vastness of God’s sovereignty, He has chosen to permit us to choose Him. The cooperative doctrines of grace and free will purposefully refrain from articulating how God is sovereign and man is free. This is a mystery that nurtures our faith in love and obedience.
This is the truth of the Scripture. This is the message of the prophets cry to “return.†This is the evangelion carried to the nations. A choice between life and death, blessing and curse has been given to us. This is Love.
There is no love in compulsion.
The good news (or maybe it’s bad news. . .hard to know) for hyper-Calvinists is that one doesn’t have to believe in free will to be operating the vehicle!
Thomas Twitchell on 09 Apr 2008 at 11:04 pm #
Well, I am no hyper-Calvinist but I do believe this:
And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
We reject prevenient grace, the infusing and comingling of natures.
There is no love in compulsion, you have rightly stated. But, love does compel us. It is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts that responds to the call “return.” It is his Spirit that works in us the willing and the operating. Not just the option to.
“He has chosen to permit us to choose Him. The cooperative doctrines of grace and free will purposefully refrain from articulating how God is sovereign and man is free.” And the way of that permission is not bare, but it is a created premission. That is the gift of faith. Faith is sure and certain and alway does that thing it trusts in, because that is what it was sent to do. This is where the difference lies. You believe that God gives you a tool which you can agree to use or not use. But that is not faith, that is works. Free will, not the humanistic/freewill of the Roman tradition, is that which we find in Christ. Fully freely decreed to choose that which is fully freely chosen. As Christ, we do what the Father has made us to do. You, on the other hand believe that you can do what God has not made you to do. The sovereign god that you look to cannot co-operate you, he can only cooperate with you. We believe in a God who is Sovereign. He is active, and therefore so we are.
Your language sounds almost the same, but it is not. We believe that it is the Spirit that is driving us to drive the vehicle, just as it was the Spirit in Christ that drove him to drive himself to the cross. Did he go there? We believe the life we live, we live by the grace of God. And that grace is faith. You believe that the life you live is by “a” grace, or graces, which you may receive or deny. That is the opposite of what Paul was saying when he said we were co-laborers. We are vessels, made for the potter’s use. Truly we carry the water, but it is the hand of God that lifts the cup.
JFrances on 10 Apr 2008 at 12:13 am #
TT: “Faith is sure and certain and alway does that thing it trusts in, because that is what it was sent to do.â€
First, I’m not even sure what or with whom you are arguing here. . .and I’m a little leary to respond as I suspect we may be trespassing on CMP’s territory with a tangential conversation which really isn’t moving in the direction his post intended. . .Having said that, a couple of things:
TT said: “Free will, not the humanistic/freewill of the Roman tradition, is that which we find in Christâ€
I’m quite certain, as you have demonstrated very well, that you are not at all cognizant of the “Roman tradition.†The doctrine of free will is not humanistic, but rather it is human. It is a natural right of all human beings created in the image and likeness of their Creator. Our natural freedom, however, is limited and even truncated by sin. As the Catechism teaches, “There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”
TT: “You, on the other hand believe that you can do what God has not made you to do.â€
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here. Yes, this is exactly what I believe regarding sin. This, however, is not how a Catholic would understand grace. Because of my God-given liberty, I CAN do what God despises. I CAN sin. I CAN choose death over life and God does not make me do it. But, only aided and animated by grace, I can also do the good things He wills for me.
“The sovereign god that you look to cannot co-operate you, he can only cooperate with you.â€
Once again, you have gotten off track in your estimation of what I believe. My God is the God of Abraham and Jacob, the Creator of the universe, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Please do to call into question my Chrisitianity with your “god” quip. For the record, when I please God, He does not cooperate with me. I cooperate with His grace. When I sin, it is my own free choice to turn from Him.
“You believe that God gives you a tool which you can agree to use or not use. . .We believe the life we live, we live by the grace of God. And that grace is faith.â€
I believe faith is grace. I also believe that obedience is grace. I believe that mercy is grace as well. And I believe that the life I live is, indeed, by the grace of God. You seem a bit hung up on this “tool” imagery. I’m not even sure what to do with that?
“You believe that the life you live is by “a†grace, or graces, which you may receive or deny.â€
I believe that the life I live is because of Christ. His Spirit is working in me. I live by grace. Period. His free gifts of love, faith, and obedience, enliven me to be a child of God. And without His grace, I am nothing. I also believe that even as a child of God, in accordance with the full weight of Scripture and the great Christian tradition, that I can choose sin apart from God authoring my disobedience. God is not the author of my sin. This is may be where perhaps our theologies would diverge.
Thomas Twitchell on 10 Apr 2008 at 1:31 am #
“Because of my God-given liberty, I CAN do what God despises.”
And we would call this bondage, and not liberty. I don’t think God has ever given anyone the liberty to sin. It was not God who gave that “liberty.” It was the deception of the Devil that took away the liberty to freely choose the good. Again, what you have done is to make the grace of God a tool. A lever for earning more graces, rewards, whatever….
You believe yourself the creator of your own reality. Amazing, but it is not grace that has done that, it is usurpation of a right that is not yours to exercise.
Seth R. on 10 Apr 2008 at 10:31 am #
Geez Thomas…
The theodicy must be an absolute nightmare for your theology.
britphil on 16 Apr 2008 at 7:46 am #
It is now six days since anybody posted anything to this thread, so after almost a week’s much-needed cooling off period maybe it is time to re-engage.
May I state a disclaimer before I begin. I had no intention whatsoever of responding to this post until Susan absurdly accused me of not sufficently engaging with the more serious minded on this site and encouraged me to interact with Thomas Twitchell on this subject.
Thomas, please my I apologise in advance of my more light-hearted approach to blogging irks you (I say this as I did not detect much in the way of himour in your earlier threads but I may be doing you a gross disservice. Anyhow, less of the introductions here goes…
“There is a gross deficiency in your definition of grace if by grace you do not mean gifting.”
With this statement I wholeheartedly concur. Any gifting we possess has its origins in the grace of God as far as I can see. Part of the problem with those of us in the more charismatic mould is that we often forget that the gifts when exercised are primarily designed to glorify the Giver, and to build up the people of God not to inflate the importance, prestige or standing of the recipient.
“Grace is not some occult tool that we yield, as is found Roman Catholicism.
Grace = gift. It is not a tool. It itself is not the thing. Faith is a grace = faith is a gift. Being a gift, faith merits nothing, but does that thing which it believes.
Therefore, the Catholic position is no better than shamanism. Swing the censor and out comes the genie of reward. It is simply the occult.
Infused grace is a Roman doctrine and has its roots in shamanistic mysticism. ”
Here Thomas we have to part company here markedly…I am not Catholic in my doctrine or practice but I think this kind of language needs to be challenged strongly. All I will say in reply is this. I have a question…and it is a burning question. Why is it that many, though by no means all, of the people I know or have met (including people such as Joanie D and JFrances on this site) whose lives have been shaped by Catholicism are actually some of the most grace-filled people you are ever likely to meet, evidencing the grace of God in and through their lives? Also why is it that while some of the Protestant people you meet, who you would expect more than anyone to demonstrate the grace of God in their lives seeing as they talk about it and believe in it so much, are amongst the least gracious when challenging something they do not agree with.
“Please remain respectful. This does not mean agree, but defend your position with gentleness and respect. Dwell on both. GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to be respectful.”
I applaud these sentiments wholeheartedly Michael.
“Well, I am no hyper-Calvinist but I do believe this:”
You mean to tell me that there are positions which are far more hyper Calvinist than this!! I am not even sure that Calvin was this Calvinistic!
Part 2 to follow shortly…(yes..believe it or not I haven’t finished yet!)
britphil on 16 Apr 2008 at 7:49 am #
Joanie D
some people will have a “closer position†to Jesus than others. I know it seems strange to talk about this, but there do seem to be passages that would indicate this is true.”
Joanie I agree with you..and I am more than willing to hazard a guess what I might be willing to hazard a guess that your Catholic upbringing and background will neither disbar or prevent you from being fairly near to Jesus in eternity…but shhhhh..keep this quiet…I do not have the final say on this by any means…but you could end up (along with JFrances) being quite a lot nearer to Jesus than Thomas!
For what it is worth, which is not much, I cannot wait until Jesus hands out the rewards in heaven, when justice will be done, and those who were willing to be last rather than first, those who have “made themselves nothing” in good old Phillipians Ch 2 style, and have managed to live their life with a resolve to conquer their ego and faithfully serve Christ receive the greatest treasures of all. I just hope I am not too far away from them so that I can share in their joy and delight!
See Susan…see what you have gone and done! It’s all you fault!! (I think I need a course in “Learning How to Take Personal Responsibility”)
Thomas Twitchell on 16 Apr 2008 at 12:35 pm #
No Seth, no problem, unlike those who believe in more than one god, I simply believe that: For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
gracious- See britphil, it is the way that you have redefined grace as graciousness, rather than the way it was being used as: gift. Graciouness is a grace. Purely and simply what you see in other people is a gift of God. And if they are Christian it is not they who live, but Christ by grace (gift) in them, who does these things. To him alone be all the glory.
My guess is that you either have not read Calvin, or you have misread him. He is clear and in the portions I quote quite clear that any grace we have and any use of that grace is by grace. What God has done for us in Christ is what we are not capable of doing. Even those charismatic gifts, that is, the charis, are not cooperated by man, but Scripture is exacting in that it says: “There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.” This goes with: “…for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” We can add to this the fact that Corinthians says that the gifts are given to profit all, that they are not distributed equally to all but are of varieties and kinds and of different proportions. All of which would either secure or exclude the earning of rewards. It is definitely not an equal opportunity program as if an egalitarian mold was cast over the church. Quite to the contrary there are callings that vary which are appointed by the Father before the world began. There is a limited number of thrones…there is a limited number of rewards. They are all by appointment, distributed serverally as He chooses and worked monergistically by Him, not cooperated by us.
So really what remains is if learning contentment means that one is willing to let God be God and let him make one a vessel fit for more honor and another for less honor. Or if learning contentment means one is discontented with God being God, the gracious gifter. Humility would require that we allow God to be the potter and for the thing that is formed to not talk back and say to the potter what are you making? This takes perserverence and persistence in doing good and spurring one another to good works, but such is the inheritance of the saints. For this also is a grace of His choosing and working.
No, brit, I think the thief on the cross will be much closer than either of us, after all, his words have been written and will endure forever. What a reward! But nothing you or I write or say has been given that.
As to the charismatics, I ran in those circles. I came into the church though Pentecostalism. During those days a thought occurred to me, call it vision, whatever. As we sat at the wedding supper of the Lamb, I looked and there was Christ across the room and seated next to him on either side, others. When I turned to speak to the person on my right, there was Christ, and to my left, there he was also. So, when I come to that place where rewards are handed out, I think I will be content with my one piece of eternal life even if others receive more. Because I know that eternal life is only in the Son. That is close enough to the Sun of Righteousness, don’t you think?
Seth R. on 16 Apr 2008 at 4:04 pm #
Well Thomas, that doesn’t really answer. If God is responsible for all my choices, that makes Him responsible for whatever evil I do - since He directly willed that I do evil. Not like I had any choice in the matter right?
I never was much for deterministic Calvinism. Always liked Arianism much better. The introduction of free will makes the theodicy much more manageable.
And to clarify, Mormons only worship one God.
Seth R. on 16 Apr 2008 at 4:08 pm #
“No, brit, I think the thief on the cross will be much closer than either of us, after all, his words have been written and will endure forever. What a reward! But nothing you or I write or say has been given that.”
Actually, according to Anglican scholar N.T. Wright, that’s an incorrect interpretation of Christ’s words. According to Wright, what Christ was telling the thief, was that he would go to a place of temporary rest - “Paradise” - where the righteous await final judgment. But it never said anything about him having an admission ticket into the final destination.
Thomas Twitchell on 16 Apr 2008 at 10:42 pm #
Seth said- Mormons only worship one God
I said- unlike those who believe in more than one god
See anthing wrong with that? In any case let’s see what Joseph Smith had had to say:
- In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. (April 1844, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349; History of the Church 6:308)
- I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.(6) (June 16, 1844, ibid, p. 370, also see p. 373 for an interesting statement)
- …they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. (Abraham 4:1; also see 4:2-29)
A plurality of Gods is taught in a Mormon Church’s teaching manual:
And recently- President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “Our Father in heaven according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:47)….President Joseph F. Smith taught: “I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions….Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman” (Church News, 19 Sept, 1936, p.2). (Search These Commandments, Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, Copyright 1984 by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, page 152)
Mormon theologian and Apostle Bruce McConkie states, “[A] plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.”
Mormons consider themselves to be monotheists because they focus their worship exclusively on the Godhead of this earth. With this being the case, a more accurate description of Mormon practice is henotheism, a form of polytheism that stresses a central deity. -World Religions Index
Joseph Smith exhorted all Mormon men to strive for this goal. He stated: Here then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . .
To paraphrase Walter Martin: if the Hindus have their thousands of God’s, Mormon’s have their millions.
As to determination, either God determines what is or another acting as a god does. And if all men have “choice” (LFW), then there are many gods. The reality, Indeterminance, like chance, does not exist.
Seth R. on 16 Apr 2008 at 10:48 pm #
My choice of words was carefully deliberate Thomas and merely meant to avoid confusion. But I’m not going down the rabbit hole with you on this one. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Thomas Twitchell on 16 Apr 2008 at 11:23 pm #
Seth- me