I've been thinking lately about my confession of evidence of good works, and it carried me down a stream of thought.
Upon reflection, some of my "good works" are really good works. By that, I mean they weren't my works at all, but people who were obviously changed or renewed in favor of the Spirit in some way. On the other hand, some of my other "good works" weren't works at all. They were selfish, immature, and probably a hinderance to the work of God. Dare I say that most of what I considered satisfactory fails a new litmus test.
I have an essay in mind I will probably unfold sometime between now and Sunday, but I wanted to solicit comments first, maybe getting other bloggers involved on their own site. If we Christians who are sola fide, and we Christians who also believe in works as evidence of salvation, it's probably important to know what the evidence is supposed to look like before we call it evidence. I've never seen much writing or heard much preaching on this subject. I'm coming to realize that man's view of good works has little to do with God's view of good works, and I don't think any Christian should be left to guess at the definition.
So get to it. I'll be out of town on Saturday most of the day, but I'll get to this post no later than Sunday evening. If I have time tonight, I'll try and get it up then.
UPDATE: A couple have e-mailed me to point me to the Heidelberg Confession. Although it is a thoroughly wonderful statement (that I agree with), I'm asking for an expansion of thought on the subject.