Commandments should not be followed ...

[mikeledes]

As for reaping the harvest for good doing, to a degree that’s a law of cause and effect here on earth, but in this cosmos, at times people are persecuted even for doing good, but ultimately “the harvest” will be reaped when the believer stands before the judgment seat of Christ and is rewarded. This judgment does not at all determine the believer’s salvation; that was determined, once for all, upon faith alone, in Christ alone.

What I find interesting is that the passage on sowing and reaping makes no mention of reaping rewards. Galatians 6:7-9 states:

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. **

It says reap ETERNAL LIFE, not reap rewards. Why make the connection between sowing (i.e. good deeds) and reaping eternal life if there is absolutely no relation between the two? In fact, if there is no relation between the two, then using the sowing and reaping analogy absolutely makes not sense.

There his works done in this body will be revealed, figuratively by fire, as to their value and rewarded accordingly (1 Cor. 3:10-15).The true believer is never “without” law. In fact he is now “in-lawed” to Christ. For the believer there’s the law of Christ, the law of liberty and the law of love.

Yes, for the believer there is the law of liberty, a moral code of conduct:

James 1:25

**25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You can read the section I posted. St Augustine is referring to the perseverance of the saints. This requires more than justification; in many cases it required martyrdom.

Here’s the final paragraph I posted:

2016 The children of our holy mother the Church** rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus**.70 Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the “blessed hope” of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the "holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."71

We must continue on to the end. If we die in a state of mortal sin, out of communion with the Church Christ founded, we will not have persevered to the end regardless of the faith of our parents which led to our initial justification at baptism and the beginning of grace.

This is the key to understanding the relationship between grace and good works in Catholic theology. Apart from the unmerited gift of final perseverance (i.e. perseverance to the end), there is no merit or reward. Only God grants this gift and on His mercy alone depends on whether we will maintain our merits or not, whether we will be rewarded or not.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Philthy]

"guanophore:

Do you realize that you are adding the word “alone” to scripture?
Faith is NEVER alone.

For salvation it is.

OK, for those following along, lets delve into the murkiness of such exchanges. It is always important to convey as best as possible, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Doing so, however, requires that everyone uses the same terms to mean the same thing.
*The claim that faith is “alone” with respect to salvation is certainly not the whole truth. Salvation faith is never separate from the grace of God as Guanophore and Pax have diligently presented. So that’s one area of confusion that arises from MD’s response. *
*A separate confusion arises when the claim is considered within the context of a “faith vs works (or anything else)” discussion. When this context is considered, it is inappropriate and useless to consider faith as “alone”. Neither Catholics nor non-Catholic Christians view salvation as earned by works alone, so who are such comments directed at here? Do proponents of either side claim that one can KNOW that they have saving faith apart from the fruit of good works? No, neither side does. God can certainly judge such things, but we on earth cannot - not for ourselves and not for anyone else. Certainly if I were of the mindset that works alone were my means to salvation (Judaism) this would be a message that had value. But in the context of an inter-Christian dialogue what is one to do with such information? Stop doing good deeds that grace may abound? Of course not! That is why I describe the discussion - and the entire concept - as useless and of no PRACTICAL importance in this forum. *
*It is perhaps a useful distinction only in discussing one’s initial conversion to faith (as an adult). It is not useful at all beyond that limited consideration. Scripture repeatedly associates the faithful with their obedience to God’s will. And for any who are wondering, that would be on BOTH sides of the Cross, throughout the old and new testaments. *
*

Maybe not for you who believes he must work throughout his life in hopes he “will be saved.”

*And here we have the root of the majority of the disagreement in this thread. It is the disagreement over the nature of salvation: is salvation instantaneous, complete and permanent (regardless of how it is accomplished) or is there more to it than that? In this thread in particular, the question of the permanancy of salvation is the central disagreement from which all other disagreements find their source. *Specifically, can salvation be lost (aka fall from grace) through disobedience (sin)? MD et al are of the opinion that salvation can NOT be lost (ie, Once saved, always - and forever - saved). There is nothing you or I can do to become “unsaved” in their opinion. All Scripture which might indicate otherwise - and there is plenty of it - is interpretively massaged to accomodate the preconceived notion that salvation can not be lost. Even when Scripture explicitly says that " a man is justified (aka saved) by works and not by faith alone"(cf James 2:24) there are ways of twisting those rather plain words to mean something other than what they quite plainly say. If they cant be twisted to mean something else, they will be viewed as not applying to believers and therefore ignored. And this twisting and ignoring results - in fact is necessitated - by an allegiance to the prior understanding of the nature of salvation as being permanent (by “faith alone” ) rather than being initiated through faith “apart from works” but subsequently conditional upon perseverence in faith (“working through love”). **
So throughout the discussions MD et al, and the Catholic commenters are really discussing salvation in different contexts. And in order to understand the discussion more completely the undelying disagreement over the nature of salvation must be understood.

 

[BRB]

.

Philthy …

You have clearly identified much of the angst going on here. People are talking over, around, etc on issues … and even taking things personally and responding with negativity.

Its turned into an us [Catholics] against them [those heretics].

Thanks for your insights and rational comments.

IMO Christ/Paul/and James teach that it all boils down to Faith [plus discipleship]. Either we consent to becoming a disciple of Christs to the end … or we fall back into our initial worldly ways.

 

[guanophore]

And yet St Paul makes no such distinctions. Indeed, Christ’s commandment to love was made that the world would know that the disciples were truly of Christ.

Taken to the extreme, would the saved be able to murder the “unsaved” with impunity?

Absolutely, especially if the ‘saved’ are predestinarians. You see, God created some people for perdition, so nothing that happens to them will change that election. Therefore, it is God’s decision that they are damned, and therefore an obedient person can dispatch such a one with impunity, since one is only conforming onself to the decision that God has already made! :bigyikes:

 

[guanophore]

moondweller your avoiding the question its basic scripture can you not answer scriptural questions? I make it aliittle biger font this time

Odell, you are in the wrong epistle. I think you might have missed the posts where it was made clear by the dispensationalists that ONLY PAUL speaks in an organized manner about the doctrines of salvation. Throwing in stuff from the Gospels, James, John, or some other epistle is of no use, because they are not writing in an organized manner about the “doctrines of salvation” as Paul does.

 

[guanophore]

Absolutely, especially if the ‘saved’ are predestinarians. You see, God created some people for perdition, so nothing that happens to them will change that election. Therefore, it is God’s decision that they are damned, and therefore an obedient person can dispatch such a one with impunity, since one is only conforming onself to the decision that God has already made! :bigyikes:

Paul (Rom 2:7-8) says, “Eternal life to those who seek glory, honor and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”

I am curious about the Reformed perspective on this passage also. Is it considered not to apply to Christians? If not, then to the Reformed believe that people who are not “in Christ” have eternal life?

Do the Reformed believe that the sinner gets eternal life in spite of sinning, but that this eternal life consists of “wrath and fury”?

 

[guanophore]

Guano …

you contradict yourself [and Paul’s words] in what you propose up above.

RCC Cat. 1992 … God justifies him who has faith in Jesus.

No, I do not contradict myself. We are justified by what Christ did, not what we do. It is not based our our works, but His. We are justified by grace through faith. Faith is the human quality through which we access the saving grace of God, not the basis upon which that salvation rests, which is Christ.

Not of ourselves, lest any man can boast.

Not to change the subject, but … sounds like St. Augustine is proclaiming OSAS here.

Seriously, can Christ lose a soul he has justified ? Election … would seem forever.

Guano talks of multiple justifications for Abraham [us ??]. What is the Church’s teaching on Election … and its Finality ?

That is a good question, and Teflon just posted the Catechism on it. No, Christ does not “lose” souls. The saved become lost when they wander from him, and refuse to return, or reject the grace by which they are saved, and refuse the benefits of it.

You are right, this is off the subject.

 

[guanophore]

Not to change the subject, but … sounds like St. Augustine is proclaiming OSAS here.

Seriously, can Christ lose a soul he has justified ? Election … would seem forever.

Guano talks of multiple justifications for Abraham [us ??]. What is the Church’s teaching on Election … and its Finality ?

That is a good question, and Pax just posted the Catechism on it. No, Christ does not “lose” souls. The saved become lost when they wander from him, and refuse to return, or reject the grace by which they are saved, and refuse the benefits of it.

 

[pneuma07]

What I find interesting is that the passage on sowing and reaping makes no mention of reaping rewards. Galatians 6:7-9 states:

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

It says reap ETERNAL LIFE, not reap rewards. Why make the connection between sowing (i.e. good deeds) and reaping eternal life if there is absolutely no relation between the two? In fact, if there is no relation between the two, then using the sowing and reaping analogy absolutely makes not sense.

Yes, for the believer there is the law of liberty, a moral code of conduct:

James 1:25

25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[pneuma07]

• In this thread in particular, the question of the permanancy of salvation is the central disagreement from which all other disagreements find their source. *Specifically, can salvation be lost (aka fall from grace) through disobedience (sin)? MD et al are of the opinion that salvation can NOT be lost (ie, Once saved, always - and forever - saved). There is nothing you or I can do to become “unsaved” in their opinion.

All Scripture which might indicate otherwise - and there is plenty of it - is interpretively massaged to accomodate the preconceived notion that salvation can not be lost. Even when Scripture explicitly says that " a man is justified (aka saved) by works and not by faith alone"(cf James 2:24) there are ways of twisting those rather plain words to mean something other than what they quite plainly say.

If they cant be twisted to mean something else, they will be viewed as not applying to believers and therefore ignored. And this twisting and ignoring results - in fact is necessitated - by an allegiance to the prior understanding of the nature of salvation as being permanent (by “faith alone” ) .**

 

[pneuma07]

Dear Moondweller,

I consider that regeneration ( Romans 6 does describe baptismal regeneration in the first part, although I’m afraid you won’t follow on this ) brings remission for past sins, not
immunity from any detrimental effects of the future ones.

I fail to understand that Romans teach that the a person’s future behaviour can remain without influence on his final destiny.

• 6(I) He will render to each one *according to his works: 7to those who(J) by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8but for those who are self-seeking[a] and(K) do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress(L) for every human being who does evil, ( Romans 2)

Does this universal statement exclude regenerated people ?

Were it so, even then I’d fail to understand that the regenerate’s behaviour is without influence on his own destiny according to the Epistles.

Be it Hebrews ( 10:36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised )

Or 1 Timothy (4: 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearer)

Or 2 Timothy ( 2:12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us

Or Philippians *(2:12 So then, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but even more in my absence, continue working out your salvation *with humility and dependence),

Or 1 Corinthians ( 9:27 But I discipline my body and keep it under control,lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. )

Or, as mentioned, Galatians ( 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. )

Every single verse here is about regenerate believers, among whom …Timothy and Paul himself. Or shall we say Paul was not a real “bac” ?

 

[ellammcg]

Neither Catholics nor non-Catholic Christians view salvation as earned by works alone, so who are such comments directed at here? Do proponents of either side claim that one can KNOW that they have saving faith apart from the fruit of good works? No, neither side does.
And here we have the root of the majority of the disagreement in this thread. It is the disagreement over the nature of salvation: is salvation instantaneous, complete and permanent (regardless of how it is accomplished) or is there more to it than that? In this thread in particular, the question of the permanancy of salvation is the central disagreement from which all other disagreements find their source. *Specifically, can salvation be lost (aka fall from grace) through disobedience (sin)? MD et al are of the opinion that salvation can NOT be lost (ie, Once saved, always - and forever - saved). There is nothing you or I can do to become “unsaved” in their opinion. All Scripture which might indicate otherwise - and there is plenty of it - is interpretively massaged to accomodate the preconceived notion that salvation can not be lost. Even when Scripture explicitly says that " a man is justified (aka saved) by works and not by faith alone"(cf James 2:24) there are ways of twisting those rather plain words to mean something other than what they quite plainly say. If they cant be twisted to mean something else, they will be viewed as not applying to believers and therefore ignored. *

You have really summed things (salvation-wise) quite nicely.:yup: It was mentioned during one of the sermons at my (Baptist) church that you have to be careful when reading certain sections of the Bible (Hebrews was specified), because without a good (Protestant) commentary, you might get confused about the security of your salvation.:ehh:

 

[moondweller]

Actually, the only thing that can be shown in scripture is the Catholic position which agrees with your view in how we “first come” to belief and justification.

So now you insert the words “first come.” Implying that it is taught that one must often come to belief in order to often be justified. Is there a specific number of times in the Catholic view? Or does it vary with every individual?

There are no verses whatsoever that show that our salvation is a done deal separate thereafter from our Christian walk.

**Salvation:**Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace through faith you have been saved…"Not: “For by grace you have been saved the first time but by works all times thereafter.” Not there, Pax.

And Paul clearly separates salvation from works when he says: “…not as a result of works.” He doesn’t say, “…not as a result of works the first time.” Why would he? There is no second or third or fourth time. Not even implied in the text.

Justification: "Rom 3:28-30 “For we maintain that a man IS justified by faith apart from works of law…indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." It doesn’t say: "For we maintain that a man is first/initially justified when he first/initially comes to belief…” Not there Pax! Not even implied in the text.

That is why Paul and all of the other inspired authors speak in provisional terms of our justification and salvation.

Nope, no provisional terms. Only exhortations for those who have been saved & justified to now walk in a manner worthy of their calling according to divine grace (unmerited favor in Christ).

Likewise, scripture clearly indicates that Abraham was justified on three separate ocassions.

I can find only one place where it’s stated: Gen. 15:6.

In any event, it is quite clear that a person is born in unbelief. At some point in time the Christian is justified.

Not quite the way Scripture presents it. When one is born he is born in sin having been born in Adam:Rom. 5:12 “…for death spread to all men because all sinned” (i.e., “in Adam”).

Rom 4:5 "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited {to him} as righteousness"Notice, Pax, God justifies the ungodly through faith. Once a man believes he is “born again,” no longer “in Adam” but now in Christ the “Last Adam.” He is no longer considered “ungodly,” but “sanctified in Christ,” a “saint” (holy one) by calling.1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours:"It is impossible for a believer to be justified more than once because God justifies the “ungodly,” not the “godly” who are now “in Christ” made righteous (Rom. 5:19.

When we first come to belief we are “initially” justified, unless you somehow believe that we were previously justified.

What is not taught is that a believer is subsequently justified.

The examples of Abraham being justified on three ocassions clearly indicates that the first ocassion would be when he was “initially” justified.

Can you show me three times in Scripture where it is stated: “Then he (Abram) believed in the LORD; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his faith) to him as righteousness?” (Gen. 15:6). I can find only this occasion, NONE other.

James does not ask if Abraham was justified BY offering up Isaac, but was he not justified “when” he offered up Isaac. The answer is, yes he was. For some 20 years prior. And even James can only quote Gen. 15:6 (Ja. 2:23). Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness ONLY ONCE. Scripture records no other time - that’s a Biblical FACT. Not before, not after.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the expression and it is perfectly congruent with scripture. Your attempts to say otherwise simply aren’t on task.

As I have more than adequately demonstrated, there’s everything wrong with it according to Scripture. Both Old and New Testament.

 

[moondweller]

Odell, you are in the wrong epistle. I think you might have missed the posts where it was made clear by the dispensationalists that ONLY PAUL speaks in an organized manner about the doctrines of salvation. Throwing in stuff from the Gospels, James, John, or some other epistle is of no use, because they are not writing in an organized manner about the “doctrines of salvation” as Paul does.

You do come up with funny things, guanophore.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

by Thomas Watson, from his work, “A Body of Practical Divinity”, 1692

'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.’ Exod 20: 3.

Before I come to the commandments, I shall answer questions, and lay down rules respecting the moral law.

What is the difference between the moral laud and the gospel?

(1) The law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel, that we worship him in and through Christ. God in Christ is propitious; out of him we may see God’s power, justice, and holiness: in him we see his mercy displayed.

(2) The moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength (as Pharaoh required brick, but gave no straw), but the gospel gives strength; it bestows faith on the elect; it sweetens the law; it makes us serve God with delight.

Of what use is the moral law to us?

It is a glass to show us our sins, that, seeing our pollution and misery, we may be forced to flee to Christ to satisfy for former guilt, and to save from future wrath. 'The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. Gal 3: 24.

But is the moral law still in force to believers; is it not abolished to them?

In some sense it is abolished to believers.

(1) In respect of justification. They are not justified by their obedience to the moral law. Believers are to make great use of the moral law, but they must trust only to Christ’s righteousness for justification; as Noah’s dove made use of her wings to fly, but trusted to the ark for safety. If the moral law could justify, what need was there of Christ’s dying?

(2) The moral law is abolished to believers, in respect of its curse. They are freed from its curse and condemnatory power. ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.’ Gal 3: Is.

How was Christ made a curse for us?

Considered as the Son of God, he was not made a curse, but as our pledge and surety, he was made a curse for us. Heb 7: 22. This curse was not upon his Godhead, but upon his manhood. It was the wrath of God lying upon him; and thus he took away from believers the curse of the law, by being made a curse for them. But though the moral law be thus far abolished, it remains as a perpetual rule to believers. Though it be not their Saviour, it is their guide. Though it be not foedus, a covenant of life; yet it is norma, a rule of life. Every Christian is bound to conform to it; and to write, as exactly as he can, after this copy. ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid.’ Rom 3: 31. Though a Christian is not under the condemning power of the law, yet he is under its commanding power. To love God, to reverence and obey him, is a law which always binds and will bind in heaven. This I urge against the Antinomians, who say the moral law is abrogated to believers; which, as it contradicts Scripture, so it is a key to open the door to all licentiousness. They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.See also The Law and the Gospel, by John Colquhoun

I’ve been following this thread. Your post summs it all up…even to the point of stating that those of old (1600s) in the Church were fighting the exact same heresies. They even had a name for them. In todays world, where there are thousands of small groups of them, they don’t all have a name.
All of the questions and arguments were answered in your post. Anyone who would argue with that is “acting” like a scoffer, according to what St. Peter calls those who would argue against the Truth.

May the Truth of Jesus, granted to us through the Power of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic Church be with all of you.

Cherie

 

[Pax]

So now you insert the words “first come.” Implying that it is taught that one must often come to belief in order to often be justified. Is there a specific number of times in the Catholic view? Or does it vary with every individual?**Salvation:**Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace through faith you have been saved…"Not: “For by grace you have been saved the first time but by works all times thereafter.” Not there, Pax.

…
…

James does not ask if Abraham was justified BY offering up Isaac, but was he not justified “when” he offered up Isaac. The answer is, yes he was. For some 20 years prior. And even James can only quote Gen. 15:6 (Ja. 2:23). Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness ONLY ONCE. Scripture records no other time - that’s a Biblical FACT. Not before, not after.As I have more than adequately demonstrated, there’s everything wrong with it according to Scripture. Both Old and New Testament.

You could not be more wrong, and Abraham is the perfect example to prove our point.

Instance #1
In Genesis 15:6 Abraham believed God concerning his descendants being as numerous as the stars, and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Instance #2
Hebrews 11:8 makes reference to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-4, and says, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.” We know this is a reference to saving faith because in Hebrews 11:1-2 it says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval.” Divine approval is given for a person’s faith only when it is a saving faith.

Instance #3
James 2:21-23 makes reference to Abraham having faith when he was to sacrifice his son Isaac upon the altar and James says that the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as rightousness; and he was called the friend of God.”

Your attempted refutation of instance #3 is ludicrous. James mentions that Abraham was justified when offered Isaac upon the altar. The passage reads as follows:

James 2:21-24
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. **You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. **

–The passage clearly shows that Abraham was justified by his works in his obedience to God in offering Isaac upon the altar.

–The passage clearly says that Abraham’s faith had works associated with it and that his faith was completed by works.

–The passage clearly states that this episode fulfills his faith and thus his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

–The passage clearly states that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. The man used as an example was Abraham. Abraham was justified by his works in sacrificing Isaac.

All of this is thus hammered home one more time by James when he uses the example of Rahab, thus showing that she also was justified by her works done in faith. Now we can be even more certain of this because in Hebrews 11:38 Rahab is once again mentioned as one of those that “acted” in faith and received divine approval.

Hebrews 11 begins with the following:

“NOW FAITH is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”(Heb 11:1-3)

The passage then goes on to mention the faith of all of many of the holy patriarchs of the OT including Abraham and of course Rahab. This is righteousness and justification and every example includes faith and the works that completed it.

Abraham was clearly justified on three separate ocassions.

 

[guanophore]

So now you insert the words “first come.” Implying that it is taught that one must often come to belief in order to often be justified. Is there a specific number of times in the Catholic view? Or does it vary with every individual?

It is clear from the Apostolic Teaching that we must come to belief in order to be justified. This marks an initiation, a beginning of our walk with Christ. The Apostles taught that these were initiatory steps. Persons are “initiated” into the faith. Christians in East and West, who have received the Apostolic Faith, refer to baptism, communion, and confirmation as sacraments of “initiation”. We can see from the passages in Revelation, as elsewhere, that people do get “lukewarm” and also fall from the love they had at first. In the scriptures we can see that Abraham was justified at least three times over a long period of time. Paul also writes “13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” Rom 2:13

Any of us who have experienced the Struggle that Paul describes in Rom. 7 know that it is very difficult to be a doer of the law, and be justified in the doing. Our sin nature makes this a constant care. So, we find that we want in our inner man to do obey the Law of Christ (love), but in our members another law is at work. We fail act in righteousness before God, and do not keep our right standing (justification) thereby. This is what it means to fall from grace.

**Salvation:**Eph. 2:8-9, "*For by grace through faith you have been saved*..."**Not**: "*For by grace you have been saved the first time but by works all times thereafter.*"  Not there, Pax.

Well, it apparently is there, moon, even though it exists only in your imagination! You keep presenting this imaginary strawman, then trying to argue against it. It is not Catholic.

Heb 10:38
“my righteous one shall live by faith”

1 John 3:6-8
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning.

We keep the law of Christ by faith, and not “of ourselves, lest any man could boast”. The fact that Jesus empowers us by His grace to keep the Law is not separated (as you imply) from the grace that justifies us.

And Paul clearly separates salvation from works when he says: “…not as a result of works.” He doesn’t say, “…not as a result of works the first time.” Why would he? There is no second or third or fourth time. Not even implied in the text.

Paul nowhere “separates” salvation from works (except in your imagination). What Paul is saying is that our salvation is based on grace, not faith, and not works. We can see from the very next verse (10) that saving faith is not “separated” from works. I agree,however, this particular text does not refer to any future “times” that one may need to be justified. However, we see them in so many other passages, it is impossible for us to ignore the fact that one can fall from grace. I marvel that you are able to do so.

**Justification:** "Rom 3:28-30 "*For we maintain that a man **IS*** justified by faith apart from works of law.....indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."  It doesn't say: *"For we maintain that a man is first/initially* justified when he first/initially comes to belief..." Not there Pax!

Well, I agree, but this is not an arguement of Pax, but your own strawman that you are creating.

We are justified by faith, initially, and ongoingly.(is that a word?). when we fall from the grace that justifies us, we have a problem.

Not even implied in the text.Nope, no provisional terms.  Only *exhortations* for those who **have been** saved & justified to now walk in a manner worthy of their calling according to divine grace (unmerited favor in Christ).

One of these days, when I am not so bizzie, I will start making a file of all the texts that have “provisional terms”. They are overwhelming. Ever since we started this discussion on the faith alone thread some months ago, they have been jumping off the pages at me.

However, we are in agreement that the believer shoudl walk worthy of the calling.

It is very Catholic of you to say that!

Rom 4:5 “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited {to him} as righteousness”[/indent]Notice, Pax, God justifies the ungodly through faith. Once a man believes he is “born again,” no longer “in Adam” but now in Christ the “Last Adam.” He is no longer considered “ungodly,” but “sanctified in Christ,” a “saint” (holy one) by calling.

I agree, but how do you account for those who persist, or fall back into, a life of sin? What of those who were justified that return again to the life whose works are death?

1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours:"

Yes, and he goes on to say that those who persist in sin should be treated as outsiders, and even excommunicated! He rails against those who are believers, those who have been “sanctified” who are living in sin!

It is impossible for a believer to be justified more than once because God justifies the “ungodly,”

This is an erroneous extrapolation. It is clear in the scripture that people can fall from a state of justification, then return to it.

not the "godly" who are now "*in Christ*" made righteous (Rom. 5:19.)

I agree that one who is in a state of grace does not need justification.
moondweller;3935482:

 What is not taught is that a believer is subsequently justified.Can you show me three times in Scripture where it is stated: "*Then he (Abram) believed in the LORD; and He (the Lord) reckoned it (his faith) to him as righteousness?*

" (Gen. 15:6). I can find only this occasion, NONE other.

I am a little reluctant to use this thread for that, but since we are in agreement now that commandments should be followed, I am willing do do so.

James does not ask if Abraham was justified BY

offering up Isaac, but was he not justified “when” he offered up Isaac. The answer is, yes he was. For some 20 years prior. And even James can only quote Gen. 15:6 (Ja. 2:23). Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness ONLY ONCE. Scripture records no other time - that’s a Biblical FACT. Not before, not after.As I have more than adequately demonstrated, there’s everything wrong with it according to Scripture. Both Old and New Testament.

We are in agreement that Abraham was justified by faith. His faith was completed by works, and by every work of faith, he demonstrated that he was justified.

 

[Pax]

Now let’s take a look at something very important.

In Genesis 15:6 we are told that “Abraham believed God concerning his descendants being as numerous as the stars, and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

The apostle Paul makes reference to this instance in his epistle to the Romans. In this regard he says:

Romans 4:16-25
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the **promise may rest on grace **and be guaranteed to all his descendants–not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”–in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. **In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, “So shall your descendants be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” **But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Here is what we can learn from this:

Paul gives his explanation and narrative about Abraham and then says, **"This is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” ** Paul mentions this so that we will examine and understand what the reasons are for this faith to be reckoned as righteousness. The reasons are first of all based on grace, and the promise is “descendents that would be as numerous as the stars and that he would father many nations.”

So what are the reasons that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness?

Paul tells us that:

1. “In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told,”
2. “He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.”
3. “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.”

These three points are significant in several ways. Each one of them contains an element of works on the part of Abraham that satisfied and pleased God. It is through these things in faith that Abraham receives divine approval.

The most telling part of this is in reason #2 although all three points are intertwined. We have to recognize that Abraham was, as Paul points out, “as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old.” Moreover, Sarah was by this time barren. This combination would normally mean that there would be no children. Yet God promised Abraham that he would be the father of nations and that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars.

By grace, faith, and the power of God Abraham and Sarah gave birth to Isaac. Thus the promise was fulfilled.

A crucial aspect of this is revealed to us by Paul when he says that Abraham was about a hundred years old and as good as dead and that Sarah was barren. Paul is delicately and courteously making it clear that Abraham was too old to sire children. Likewise, he states that Sarah was barren. In Genesis 18:12 we are told that Sarah laughs upon hearing that she and Abraham will bear children.

The passage says:

"So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”

This again is a delicately stated phrase describing the lack of a sex life of this couple at that stage of their lives. Nevertheless, these two people believed God. Moreover, they engaged in marital relations and God blessed them with Isaac and God fulfilled the promise.

The promise would not have been fulfilled had Abraham not had relations with Sarah. Abraham and Sarah were pretty much incapable of marital relations at that stage in their lives, but they believed God and engaged in marital relations. The ability and power to do so were granted to them by way of God’s grace. By grace and faith they begat Isaac.

Without that work or activity on their part the promise would not have been fulfilled by God. If the promise was not fulfilled because of this work/action Abraham would not have been the father of many nations. Abraham would not have been justified because he would not have completed his faith by that action. Abraham’s faith would not have been reckoned to him as righteousness.

 

[guanophore]

You do come up with funny things, guanophore.

I notice that you did not respond to the passages from the Catechism on Justification. Why is that?