Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: If it's not a work, how can we do it? Message-ID: Date: 7 Jan 91 04:16:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 29 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In yet another `Faith vs Works' discussion, Cindy Smith said that `Repentance is a good work', and Ken Kutz objected, apparently on the grounds that repentance is not something we do, but something God does. As Cindy pointed out, however, Jesus' instruction was `Repent'. (I could spend a few paragraphs discussing what kind of instruction that is, and how there is an implied `you' on the front of it, and naming the parts of speech, but I won't. It would certainly match the arrogant tone of superiority that some articles in this thread have had, but I'm rather sick of it myself.) If "[r]epentance originates with God and is a gift granted to us", why did Jesus tell us to do it? If we cannot repent, what is the sense in telling us to do so? Why would Jesus give instructions that we can have no part in carrying out? If we do have some part (however small) in carrying out the instruction, then that part was something we did -- a work. If we can have *no* part in carrying out Jesus' instruction, then why did he bother giving it to us? I am presuming that you believe we have *no* part in carrying out the order to repent -- why then do you think Jesus gave the order? kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu Darren F. Provine ...njin!gboro!kilroy "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed -- not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence -- continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." -- Philippians 2:12