Is the Sermon on the Mt. a knock-out punch to salvation by good works?

[b***@juno.com]

The Sermon on the Mount, beginning in Matthew 5, has Jesus appearing to
advocate a salvation that is based upon good works. Also, the parable
of the Sheep and the Goats of Matt 25, has the same appearance. Also,
the epistle of James seems to say that faith without works is dead.

This appears to contrast with the message of the epistles of St. Paul
(Romans through Philemon). Paul appears to be saying that faith alone
is the key to getting saved.

But now to back up. In the four gospels, when Jesus forgives sinners,
he says over and over again "your FAITH has saved you." This happens
many, many times in the gospels....... too many times to mention here.

Now, how could the same Jesus demand good works, but then to
prostitutes and tax-collectors, he simply says, "your faith has saved
you?"

So here is my opinion, which you are free to disagree with:

It is my opinion that Jesus elaborates upon hard-core legalism in the
Sermon on the Mount, in order to deliver a KNOCK OUT BLOW to those who
believe they can save themselves by good works.

Jesus takes the old testament legalism, amplifies it, and makes it
unreachable. Examples:

Old Testament says do not murder. Jesus says if you even get angry, you
have committed murder.
Old Testament says do not commit adultery. Jesus says if you lust, you
have committed adultery.
And so on.........

Thus, far from being a good-works legalistic manifesto, the whole point
of Christ saying what he said was to make us realize that we simply
CANNOT earn our way to heaven, and we have to collapse in
despair........ but this despair turns to hope when we trust in "the
rock that makes them stumble, and whoever trusts IN HIM will never be
put to shame!!!!!!!!!" (Rom 9:33)

[h***@rutgers.edu]

Post by b***@juno.com
It is my opinion that Jesus elaborates upon hard-core legalism in the
Sermon on the Mount, in order to deliver a KNOCK OUT BLOW to those who
believe they can save themselves by good works.
Jesus takes the old testament legalism, amplifies it, and makes it
unreachable.

I agree that Jesus made the demands stronger. I also agree that he
understood that people would not always reach it. However Jesus was
also clear that calling him "Lord, Lord" was not enough: you are
expected to obey him.

Jesus' approach seems to be to renew the person, and to expect
good works to follow. He uses analogy of a good tree bearing good
fruit. But he also endorses the converse:

7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown
into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

Jesus would surely object to any idea that we are saved by good works
per se. He expects good works to come from love for and obedience to
God. However when he talks about judgement, it is typically based on
works.

This is not different from Paul. Paul talked a lot about faith, but
he also talked a lot about works.

Luther started his campaign because he saw an approach that separated
good works from anything else. Jesus would surely not have endorsed
the idea that we could win forgiveness by giving a gift to the Church.
(This is not Catholic teaching, but it appears that Tetzel probably
said it.) Luther, and Protestants in general, emphasize faith, because
they want good works to follow from faith in Christ, and at the time
the connection was often not clear. They would be just as much upset
at any account of Christianity that considered an intellectual belief
sufficient, i.e. a belief that is not connected with repentance,
renewal, and yes, the works that result. Faith, in Protestant
terminology, is not just belief. Salvation is not "you've passed the
Uniform Examination for Doctrinal Conformity, so we'll let you into
heaven." Salvation is a renewal of the person, based on a union with
Christ.