Earning our salvation

[gurneyhalleck1]

The problems I still have with this justification issue is that are our sins truly taken away? A man can look at pornography and sin, go to confession, be forgiven, pray and pray, but then he still looks at women lustfully. The sin of looking at pornography is gone, but the lustful, adulterous thoughts persist and Jesus tells us that adultery in the mind is the same as literal adultery. Both are sinful. And Paul tells us that to break the least of the Law is to break ALL of the Law and that no one is righteous, not one, nobody. And Paul does use the imputation language of “credited as righteous.” Like a tent-maker he uses that accounting language. He tells us Christ credits us as righteous. So I wonder how we are sanctified before we’re justified? How are our sins truly and completely taken away? Being forgiven is one thing, the actual sins removed another. This situation puts so much emphasis on our works and our individual behavior that I don’t see how grace really changes us before we’re justified. It seems like it makes more sense that we’re justified then sanctified. And are we truly made righteous with grace or are we considered righteous by God. The Lutheran approach makes sense in that we are never going to be worthy of salvation and to break the least of the Law is to break all of it. We’ll always fall short. So any measuring stick of our works will come up empty. Even united with Christ’s grace we fall short and repeat our sins and remain unworthy. So in the end it is alien righteousness that Christ covers our sins and declares us righteous, it’s credited as per Paul’s description in Romans and Galatians. This Lutheran view is easier to comprehend than the Catholic approach that somehow God will judge us based on a mysterious combination of works AND grace. How many good works will one need united to Christ’s grace? How good must we be? These are the things that I think plagued men like Luther during the Reformation. People in here are saying we aren’t “earning” our salvation but if works must be attached to the free grace of Christ, then we are earning our salvation. If there is a treasury of merit that we can tap into through our works, then earning is in play.

 

[fhansen]

The problems I still have with this justification issue is that are our sins truly taken away? A man can look at pornography and sin, go to confession, be forgiven, pray and pray, but then he still looks at women lustfully. The sin of looking at pornography is gone, but the lustful, adulterous thoughts persist and Jesus tells us that adultery in the mind is the same as literal adultery. Both are sinful. And Paul tells us that to break the least of the Law is to break ALL of the Law and that no one is righteous, not one, nobody. And Paul does use the imputation language of “credited as righteous.” Like a tent-maker he uses that accounting language. He tells us Christ credits us as righteous. So I wonder how we are sanctified before we’re justified? How are our sins truly and completely taken away? Being forgiven is one thing, the actual sins removed another. This situation puts so much emphasis on our works and our individual behavior that I don’t see how grace really changes us before we’re justified. It seems like it makes more sense that we’re justified then sanctified. And are we truly made righteous with grace or are we considered righteous by God. The Lutheran approach makes sense in that we are never going to be worthy of salvation and to break the least of the Law is to break all of it. We’ll always fall short. So any measuring stick of our works will come up empty. Even united with Christ’s grace we fall short and repeat our sins and remain unworthy. So in the end it is alien righteousness that Christ covers our sins and declares us righteous, it’s credited as per Paul’s description in Romans and Galatians. This Lutheran view is easier to comprehend than the Catholic approach that somehow God will judge us based on a mysterious combination of works AND grace. How many good works will one need united to Christ’s grace? How good must we be? These are the things that I think plagued men like Luther during the Reformation. People in here are saying we aren’t “earning” our salvation but if works must be attached to the free grace of Christ, then we are earning our salvation. If there is a treasury of merit that we can tap into through our works, then earning is in play.

God will judge us, as John of the Cross says, on our love, which fulfills the law. Otherwise He’d be guilty of giving us laws He knew we could never fulfill. The purpose of grace is to help us fulfill the New Covenant promises of Jer 31:

**“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.” **

The bottom line is simply that man needs God in order to have life and live it as God always intended him to live it, rather than to reject God, as Adam & Eve did, going their own way, and die.

 

[BlueShadow123]

The bible is very clear on how to earn your salvation. Have them read the book.

 

[cooterhein]

From the 2nd Council of Orange:

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

These statements affirm the necessity of mans’ will being involved in his salvation while precluding the error of double predestination.

Very good, you’ve demonstrated an ability to use this document for the purpose of affirming certain doctrines and refuting others. Can you demonstrate an ability to do this with the particular teaching that is of greatest relevance to this thread?

Your participation on this thread should not be geared toward a series of attempts to reprove or correct me. What you should be doing is making use of the 2nd Council of Orange in order to help the OP demonstrate to non-Catholics that he or she (I can’t remember which) renounces all forms of the Pelagian heresy (especially semi-) that pertain to “earning salvation.”

 

[Bub]

What is the best way to explain to a non catholic that we do not believe we can “earn our salvation”. Its very frustrating. I see some Q/A on the catholic answers site that address the issue, but is the best thing to refer them to the Council of Trent or the catechism? I just have the feeling they would react to the Q/A by saying its not true.

Let jesus answer them

 

[fhansen]

Very good, you’ve demonstrated an ability to use this document for the purpose of affirming certain doctrines and refuting others. Can you demonstrate an ability to do this with the particular teaching that is of greatest relevance to this thread?

Your participation on this thread should not be geared toward a series of attempts to reprove or correct me. What you should be doing is making use of the 2nd Council of Orange in order to help the OP demonstrate to non-Catholics that he or she (I can’t remember which) renounces all forms of the Pelagian heresy (especially semi-) that pertain to “earning salvation.”

Alright, and while I thought I *was *addressing the matter, maybe I don’t grasp this issue so well. So let me ask you this, referring to the OP: Is there a difference, in your mind, between man’s cooperating with grace and man’s earning his salvation by his works? Are they both semi-Pelagian?

 

[JonNC]

If you believe in the necessity of works…don’t we believe the same thing?

I hope the answer is yes.

It depends on howyou view it, where you place the role of works. I’ll use the Formula of Concord.

On the role of works in Justification:

We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.

Regarding the role of works in the justified

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.
   (bound here means more than certainly, it also means obligated)

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

The red is mine

Jon

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It depends on howyou view it, where you place the role of works. I’ll use the Formula of Concord.

On the role of works in Justification:

Regarding the role of works in the justified

The red is mine

Jon

Thanks, Jon, this is very enlightening on Lutheran beliefs. However, I think Catholics do good works because they want to also. Once a person becomes a real Christian, (as opposed to in name only) he is following Christ. Christ basically told us to love God and one another. So whether we follow the same religious sect or not, as Christians we want to do good works to please God and to help our fellow man. At least that’s how I see it!

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon, this is very enlightening on Lutheran beliefs. However, I think Catholics do good works because they want to also. Once a person becomes a real Christian, (as opposed to in name only) he is following Christ. Christ basically told us to love God and one another. So whether we follow the same religious sect or not, as Christians we want to do good works to please God and to help our fellow man. At least that’s how I see it!

I agree, and the next paragraph in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord says:

1. Yet this is not to be understood otherwise than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare, namely, regarding the liberated spirit, that it does not do this from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children, Rom. 8:15.

I think you see it well. To please God, and help our neighbors.

Jon

 

[agent_grey]

Page 1 of the bible. “unless you put forth your hand and take from the tree of life and eat also…”

That quote sums up the Catholic teaching on just about anything that the accusers dislike. Especially Communion. And it also destroys the false doctrine of symbolic communion. and the best part is it takes about five minutes from the start of scripture till one reads these words.

 

[ajcstr]

You have to figure out what they mean by “earn our salvation”. If they mean that it says this sentence in the CCC (in the middle of paragraph 2010), “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,” you have one issue. If they mean that they object to the idea that baptism is a sacrament that Catholics supposedly “perform” and thus it is a work that is viewed as an attempt to compel God to justify us, that is another thing. Or, they may be concerned that some Catholic out there might believe that people can somehow obligate God to justify them from sin by being nice people who help the elderly cross the street and who volunteer for the peace corps and who don’t commit crimes. (I am not claiming Catholics actually believe whatever it is that the hypothetical questioner is concerned about, btw.) Oh, perhaps they also might be objecting to some idea they heard that one can fall from grace after being justified. My experience is that each person who asks questions about “earn our salvation” may have a slightly different concern in their mind, so you have to ask them about it further.

This first point is a good one - I think it is more from a “merit” point of view. I’m sure its not specifically that phrase in the CCC but that is the gist of the argument I would think.

Overall, my main motivation here is this: I obviously know that there is disagreement on issues. These have been debated for 2000 years and will continue to be debated. But I am not in this case trying to debate his belief on justification/salvation. I am trying to tell him he is wrong in his belief of what Catholics believe (if that makes any sense). This thread has turned into a debate of the belief.

 

[ajcstr]

2010 world series champions! Go giants!.

ENJOY

(Go Phils)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I respect the Phillies. Awesome team. They had me worried at times. But our pitching and surprisingly our offense was too much for Philly. I’m still savoring that trophy, man. 56 years comin’! I love my Giants…

ENJOY

(Go Phils)

 

[ajcstr]

I respect the Phillies. Awesome team. They had me worried at times. But our pitching and surprisingly our offense was too much for Philly. I’m still savoring that trophy, man. 56 years comin’! I love my Giants…

SF got the timely hits - most of them with 2 outs - the kind we got the past 2 years. If we could have won game 4 or 6 I think we may have taken it although Cain looked awful good in the WS.

 

[pablope]

Great that we agree! Through our works we are sanctified. Are works will be judged. For those works which survive the judgment, we will receive our reward. **But for those whose works are burned up, he will still be saved. ** (1 Cor 3:10-15).

Maybe not.

Matthew 16:24-27 (King James Version)

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

 

[ignatius777]

Maybe not.

Matthew 16:24-27 (King James Version)

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Jesus opened the door of salvation to us but its up to us to walk through it

 

[Pug]

This first point is a good one - I think it is more from a “merit” point of view. I’m sure its not specifically that phrase in the CCC but that is the gist of the argument I would think.

Overall, my main motivation here is this: I obviously know that there is disagreement on issues. These have been debated for 2000 years and will continue to be debated. But I am not in this case trying to debate his belief on justification/salvation. I am trying to tell him he is wrong in his belief of what Catholics believe (if that makes any sense). This thread has turned into a debate of the belief.

Hmmm. Okay, so if it is the first thing I mentioned, I suggest you go over with your friend what you two do agree to, so that part is clear. You both agree that between man and God there is an infinite gap. Everything we have came from him. A man has nothing that he did not receive. And even any good work that we do (by this I mean meritorious work) proceeds from grace and the Holy Spirit, from our being in Christ. The meritorious work is not ours, except by gift, freely given. Perhaps ask your friend if God is free to give this sort of gift, if he wills?

I’m hoping this will help your friend, to see that we see merits as gifts, to help him with his concerns about “earning”.

Not that I really know how to help you with this. Just some suggestions.

 

[fhansen]

Hmmm. Okay, so if it is the first thing I mentioned, I suggest you go over with your friend what you two do agree to, so that part is clear. You both agree that between man and God there is an infinite gap. Everything we have came from him. A man has nothing that he did not receive. And even any good work that we do (by this I mean meritorious work) proceeds from grace and the Holy Spirit, from our being in Christ. The meritorious work is not ours, except by gift, freely given. Perhaps ask your friend if God is free to give this sort of gift, if he wills?

I’m hoping this will help your friend, to see that we see merits as gifts, to help him with his concerns about “earning”.

Not that I really know how to help you with this. Just some suggestions.

And it’s also important to add that we can resist or reject the gifts that God offers us.

 

[cooterhein]

Alright, and while I thought I *was *addressing the matter, maybe I don’t grasp this issue so well. So let me ask you this, referring to the OP: Is there a difference, in your mind, between man’s cooperating with grace and man’s earning his salvation by his works? Are they both semi-Pelagian?

Maybe I was a little unclear. When I said “This is what you should be doing” and then told you to make use of the Second Council of Orange in order to help the OP demonstrate to non-Catholics that you know what semi-Pelagianism is and that you flatly renounce it, what I meant was this.

In your next response to me, you should be making use of the Second Council of Orange- just like you did before, except that time, it was inexplicably geared toward double-predestination. I think I know why; let’s not do that anymore, okay? This time, actually be helpful to the OP and use it to refute semi-Pelagianism.

I’ll give you more specific instructions, just in case. Copy and paste Canon 4 from the Second Council of Orange. Imagine that you just showed it to a non-Catholic. Next, write a couple of things you might say in order to demonstrate that you’re in full agreement with what it says. A simple rephrasing of the material will do, along with the appropriate insertions of your own name or personal pronouns and the appropriate affirmations or denials.

Finally, tell the non-Catholic why you picked this material. “A semi-Pelagian is the sort of person who would believe this, or at the very least, that.” (The material of Canon 4 should make “this” and “that” abundantly clear). “I do not believe this and that; instead, my beliefs line up with what’s in Canon 4. I already told you,” (for example), “even my will to be cleansed from sin is a result of something the Holy Spirit does, not a result of anything that I can do.”

If you want to be absolutely sure that you’re addressing the matter, start by copying and pasting Canon 4.

Did you do it yet?

Assuming you did, go ahead and do the rest of it.

When you’re done with that, maybe you can see if there’s another canon that’s applicable to semi-Pelagianism. They aren’t all going to be; for example, you already cherry-picked the part that has something to do with double-predestination and nothing to do with semi-Pelagianism.

Again, why? (It’s rhetorical; I’m pretty sure I know why).

Obviously, if you choose to continue the exercise beyond Canon 4, make sure you pick something that has a lot to do with semi-Pelagianism. Then go from there.

 

[JonNC]

ENJOY

(Go Phils)

Another fan of the Phightin Phils. This transcends any other differences we may have.

Jon