Faith only?

[CentralFLJames]

First of all, I was originally addressing the fact that the “good thief” did not receive the Eucharist and was saved through Christ, thereby making your point about absolutely no admittance for those who haven’t received the Eucharist dead in the water.
I also pointed out to you that Moses and Elijah were saved as illustrated by the Transfiguration, yet they never received the Eucharist.

Secondly, I NEVER said that “those who have heard the word of God, been baptised and consciously reject the Catholic Church teaching on Eucharist” can be saved - YOU keep implying that this is what I mean. It ISN’T.
That’s not invincible ignorance anyway.

**You keep arguing with me as though we have different **beliefs on the matter. What we have are different ways of hearing what the Church teaches on the subject.

**Lastly, don’t throw out percentages like, *"***99.98% of the cases" because that is not up for you to decide the percentages. It’s up to GOD.

Let me point out two more final things on this that are still in error then I’ll let it go. But I think I am owed an apology for stating and implying that I am judging as if I am God. I never did such a thing.

None of these people you mentioned where subject to the New Covenant but rather the Old Covenant - except perhaps the Good Thief depending on if he died before Christ or not (probably after). Irrespective, The Thief, according to the CCC received a Baptism of Desire and that is what saved him. Eucharist was not an option in fact or by physical circumstance for any of them and that does not make Jesus’ teaching about Eucharist mute or “dead in the water” as you say since we agree that those desiring Eucharist (Spiritual Communion) are a seperate case from those who consciously deny the validity of Eucharist.

As a further elaboration please note that Jesus ‘did not come to call the righteous, but to call sinners’. So the implication of this relative to this topic is to be found in the context of who he was talking to - the Pharisees (who He was complaining to). It’s clear from Jesus that anyone who thinks he is “righteous” apparently does not think he is a sinner and in need of Jesus. The sarcastic message here is ‘woe to the hippocrates if they are only found righteous in their own eyes but not righteous in God’s eyes’.

My point? My point is that I only quoted Jesus and let His words speak on their own merits without personal embellishment. That is NOT my judgement but rather someone else’s conscience. Nothing I quoted prevents any non-Catholic who is baptised under the New Covenant under a different faith to imagine they are “righteous” in God’s eyes and go right on blissfully denying real presence and NOT receiving the Eucharist. That is a matter certainly between God and them. But as you now admit it is completely contrary to what Jesus said in that specific verse about eating The Eucharist that I quoted.

All that said I still maintain you quoted me the wrong CCC when you rebutted by pointing to the CCC on invincible ignorance. As a matter of completeness If you want to point to something else that is appropriate - please do so for the sake of the others here. If that proves I pointed inappropriately to Jesus’ teaching I will stand corrected and become more enlightened in what the teaching is.

The second thing though is the percentage thing. That was admittedly perhaps inappropriate if it implied a personal judgement of those going to Hell; but that is not a judgement I made or intended here. So why are you judging my coloqeulistic expression of the rarity of when its OK to deviate from teaching as an expression of Judgement of any particular soul going to hell over not receiving Eucharist? Expressing my take on the CCC is not a judgement in numbers who go to hell unless you yourself are judging that a violation of CCC teaching condemns one to hell 100% of the time.

Please go back and read my words shown below. This is two times now that you have falsely accused me of judging like God when I was simply quoting Jesus teaching verbatim in the first case and in the second case expressing what the normative teaching of The Church is through the CCC.

But I think we do an injustice by trying to pacify people into complacency by implying that receiving the Eucharist is not the normative expectation for 99.98% of the cases.

Note that I was generous in taking shared responsibility for any confusion (“we”) you and I are generating over this discussion. But nowhere in my above quote did I say or imply a final judgement to hell for anyone not conforming to the normative expectation. So why are you acting like God here and judging me ?

This is getting tangential to the topic but now you have me concerned that I am missing a teaching (rare for me). So I’d still like for you to point me to a Catholic teaching that gives a “wider”, more liberal guidance as to what exceptions are permitted for baptised Christians who reject Catholic teaching to not receive Eucharist. The one you provided in response to my first request was the wrong one since it did not apply.

Peace,
James

 

[elvisman]

Let me point out two more final things on this that are still in error then I’ll let it go. But I think I am owed an apology for stating and implying that I am judging as if I am God. I never did such a thing.

None of these people you mentioned where subject to the New Covenant but rather the Old Covenant - except perhaps the Good Thief depending on if he died before Christ or not (probably after). Irrespective, The Thief, according to the CCC received a Baptism of Desire and that is what saved him. Eucharist was not an option in fact or by physical circumstance for any of them and that does not make Jesus’ teaching about Eucharist mute or “dead in the water” as you say since we agree that those desiring Eucharist (Spiritual Communion) are a seperate case from those who consciously deny the validity of Eucharist.

My point? My point is that I only quoted Jesus and let His words speak on their own merits without personal embellishment. That is NOT my judgement but rather someone else’s conscience. Nothing I quoted prevents any non-Catholic who is baptised under the New Covenant under a different faith to imagine they are “righteous” in God’s eyes and go right on blissfully denying real presence and NOT receiving the Eucharist.
All that said I still maintain you quoted me the wrong CCC when you rebutted by pointing to the CCC on invincible ignorance. As a matter of completeness If that proves I pointed inappropriately to Jesus’ teaching I will stand corrected and become more enlightened in what the teaching is.

The second thing though is the percentage thing. That was admittedly perhaps inappropriate if it implied a personal judgement of those going to Hell; but that is not a judgement I made or intended here. So why are you judging my coloqeulistic expression of the rarity of when its OK to deviate from teaching as an expression of Judgement of any particular soul going to hell over not receiving Eucharist? Expressing my take on the CCC is not a judgement in numbers who go to hell unless you yourself are judging that a violation of CCC teaching condemns one to hell 100% of the time.

Please go back and read my words shown below. This is two times now that you have falsely accused me of judging like God when I was simply quoting Jesus teaching verbatim in the first case and in the second case expressing what the normative teaching of The Church is through the CCC.

Note that I was generous in taking shared responsibility for any confusion (“we”) you and I are generating over this discussion. But nowhere in my above quote did I say or imply a final judgement to hell for anyone not conforming to the normative expectation. So why are you acting like God here and judging me ?

This is getting tangential to the topic but now you have me concerned that I am missing a teaching (rare for me). So I’d still like for you to point me to a Catholic teaching that gives a “wider”, more liberal guidance as to what exceptions are permitted for baptised Christians who reject Catholic teaching to not receive Eucharist. The one you provided in response to my first request was the wrong one since it did not apply.

Peace,
James

An** apology****? Remember that **YOU attacked me first. I wasn’t even conversing with you, originally – you butted in.
In your second vitriolic assault, you said to me, “You appeared to be condoning not receiving Eucharist.”
This is not at all what I said or meant. You were condescending to me as you accused me of grandstanding. You questioned whether or not I am Catholic – when it is right there on my Profile. Now, you want me to apologize to you? I think not. I haven’t judged you so don’t judge me.
**I was speaking to a Catholic about the thief on the cross and his inability or unavailability to have received the Eucharist. **I have pointed out to you over and over that there are MANY who CANNOT receive the Eucharist and may still be saved. Those who are not of age, the severely retarded, all of those who came before Christ, the thief on the cross. You keep coming up with new rules in the discussion as to how these examples don‘t count.

Finally, to answer your first assault, which was:
“Thank you for your opinion - but this is contrary to what Christ teaches.
What part of ‘unless you eat of my body you have no life in you’ do you not understand?”

We are INDEED saved by the finished work of Jesus on the cross. If you don‘t believe that – then** YOU**** should revisit the Catechism.**

If you want to discuss this rationally, instead of taking up space on this thread, you can PM me.
Thanks.

 

[abenassi]

If salvation is not of ourselves, than how can it be by anything but Faith?

Is faith of yourself? No, its a grace from God. Are works from ourselves? No, they are a grace from God.

We are saved by grace alone; not faith, not works. God offers us the grace to have faith. God offers us the grace to do good works. We accept God’s grace when we have faith. We accept God’s grace when we have faith and do good works in His name. Faith does not **earn **salvation. Works do not **earn **salvation. Only by God’s grace do we gain salvation. How do we gain grace? By faith and works. Not just faith. Not just works. Faith and works. Faith is required to precede works. Works are required to follow faith. These are the only ways to accept God’s grace. We need both.

 

[protestantman]

Is faith of yourself? No, its a grace from God. Are works from ourselves? No, they are a grace from God.

We are saved by grace alone; not faith, not works. God offers us the grace to have faith. God offers us the grace to do good works. We accept God’s grace when we have faith. We accept God’s grace when we have faith and do good works in His name. Faith does not **earn **salvation. Works do not **earn **salvation. Only by God’s grace do we gain salvation. How do we gain grace? By faith and works. Not just faith. Not just works. Faith and works. Faith is required to precede works. Works are required to follow faith. These are the only ways to accept God’s grace. We need both.

 This is almost exactly the point I am trying to get accross. This is actually a Calvinistic teaching that you have given:)  Everything you say here is absolutely correct. 
 
 My point was not to say that faith or works are of ourselves.  I believe both are from grace, for God is sovereign.  The point I was driving at the fact that these things follow a particular order. By Grace we are saved THROUGH Faith. from this Faith we recieve the Holy Spirit. The HS then supplies us with the grace to perfect our salvation, so that we can thus produce good fruit. 

 I think that it is important to note that I do not believe that faith and works can be seperated. They are like fire and smoke. Never will you see fire without smoke or faith without works.

 

[protestantman]

This is what Jesus has to say about it and this is what I believe:
Matt. 7:21:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."

---

This is what St. Paul has to say about those who thing that salvation is a slam-dunk after professing your faith:
(Philipians 2:12)*** “So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and***trembling.”
(1 Cor. 4:3-4) I do not even pass judgment on myself;
I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord.

---

Sanctification is a process - NOT a slam-dunk.

---

I absolutely agree that sanctification is a process. Again, my point is that works are a result of salvation. Sanctification is the perfection of salvation. Note that the Bible does make a reference to both salvation and the perfection of salvation.

P.S. again, none of the verses you have posted refute anything that I have said. Not everyone that says Lord, Lord, has faith (think of all the people who cry out to God when a loved one dies.)
As for the other two verses, I dont see the point your making. They both just comment about how we should have fear that our faith is bearing good fruit so that we can be sure of our salvation.(None of that seems to make any point on your part.)

I agree with those two verses. In fact I constantly look at my actions and works to see if they are self pleasing or pleasing to God. As Paul said, No one judges me harsher than I judge myself.
I also know that all my actions will be tested by fire at the Bema. Only then will I know how much fruit I produced.

 

[elvisman]

I absolutely agree that sanctification is a process. Again, my point is that works are a result of salvation. Sanctification is the perfection of salvation. Note that the Bible does make a reference to both salvation and the perfection of salvation.

As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), BUT I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).

P.S. again, none of the verses you have posted refute anything that I have said. Not everyone that says Lord, Lord, has faith (think of all the people who cry out to God when a loved one dies.)

As for the other two verses, I dont see the point your making. They both just comment about how we should have fear that our faith is bearing good fruit so that we can be sure of our salvation.(None of that seems to make any point on your part.)

I thought as a Protestant, you were SURE of your salvation. Now you say that we should have fear about it.
**As for those crying out, “Lord, Lord . . .” – it doesn’t apply to those crying out when a loved one dies. He is talking about those who simply talk the talk (i.e., Faith ALONE) as opposed to those who walk the walk (i.e., those who DO the will of the Father).

I agree with those two verses. In fact I constantly look at my actions and works to see if they are self pleasing or pleasing to God. As Paul said, No one judges me harsher than I judge myself.

I also know that all my actions will be tested by fire at the Bema. Only then will I know how much fruit I produced.

At the Bema? This has never been taught in all of Christian history until the Dispensationalist teachings reared their head. This isn’t even accepted by all Protestants. It’s nothing more than a way to rationalize the doctrine of Purgatory, based on 1 Cor. 3:112-15.

 

[protestantman]

**I thought as a Protestant, you were **SURE of your salvation. Now you say that we should have fear about it.

I beleive in the assurance of salvation, but I also look at my salvation with fear, that it my be perfected, bearing much fruit. You must also note that I believe that there are rewards to be gained and lost even for those who are saved. (The Parables of the Talents and Minas.)

**As for those crying out, **“Lord, Lord . . .” – it doesn’t apply to those crying out when a loved one dies. He is talking about those who simply *talk *the talk (i.e., Faith ALONE) as opposed to those who walk the walk (i.e., those who DO the will of the Father).

Of your own understanding, maybe. As your opinion of the meaning of this verse differs from mine, I believe there is more evidence needed to establish its intended meaning. The fact is, that it could mean a number of things.

At the Bema? This has never been taught in all of Christian history until the Dispensationalist teachings reared their head. This isn’t even accepted by all Protestants. It’s nothing more than a way to rationalize the doctrine of Purgatory, based on 1 Cor. 3:112-15.

The bema was where Paul went to be judged by the officials in Corinth.  When he wrote the letter to the church in Corinth, he used that judgement as an example of the 2nd judgement.

2 Corinthians 5:10
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Bema is a Greek word that means judgement seat. So it is not some new fangled belief by anyone. In second Corinthians, Paul talked about a bema in heaven.

 

[elvisman]

I beleive in the assurance of salvation, but I also look at my salvation with fear, that it my be perfected, bearing much fruit. You must also note that I believe that there are rewards to be gained and lost even for those who are saved. (The Parables of the Talents and Minas.)

Of your own understanding, maybe. As your opinion of the meaning of this verse differs from mine, I believe there is more evidence needed to establish its intended meaning. The fact is, that it could mean a number of things.

And, therein lies the tragedy of Protestantism. Each interprets for himself, therby creating faction after faction after faction . . .

The bema was where Paul went to be judged by the officials in Corinth. When he wrote the letter to the church in Corinth, he used that judgement as an example of the 2nd judgement.
2 Corinthians 5:10
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Bema is a Greek word that means judgement seat. So it is not some new fangled belief by anyone. In second Corinthians, Paul talked about a bema in heaven.

I’m aware of what “Bema” means. I am also aware that this belief in the so-called “Bema Judgement”, where only those who will receive awards will happen is a man-made doctrine - a dispensationalist belief.

2 Corinthians 5:10:
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil."
It doesn’t say, “Each believer”.

---

On the other hand, 1 Cor. 3:12-15 speaks to the believers - and Purgatory:
*****“If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, *****the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. **
***If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. ***
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”

---

**

 

[abenassi]

This is almost exactly the point I am trying to get accross. This is actually a Calvinistic teaching that you have given Everything you say here is absolutely correct.

 My point was not to say that faith or works are of ourselves.  I believe both are from grace, for God is sovereign.  The point I was driving at the fact that these things follow a particular order. By Grace we are saved THROUGH Faith. from this Faith we recieve the Holy Spirit. The HS then supplies us with the grace to perfect our salvation, so that we can thus produce good fruit. 

 I think that it is important to note that I do not believe that faith and works can be seperated. They are like fire and smoke. Never will you see fire without smoke or faith without works.

Well, if what you say is true, then Calvin wasn’t wrong about everything. This is Catholic teaching that I have given. If any Catholic knows differently, please speak up.

If you agree with this, then why is there still an argument? If your understanding of the word “faith” means “faith and works” since faith and works cannot be separated, then what you are saying is that we are saved by grace through faith and good works. That is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. It is also what Protestants believe because they do not separate faith and works. Catholics do. Arguments against the Catholic position are really just arguing about terminology with a pinch of misunderstanding. Catholics don’t believe that they can earn salvation by works of their own. Just like Protestants.

 

[protestantman]

**And, therein lies the tragedy **of Protestantism. Each interprets for himself, therby creating faction after faction after faction . . .

I’m aware of what “Bema” means. I am also aware that this belief in the so-called “Bema Judgement”, where only those who will receive awards will happen is a man-made doctrine - a dispensationalist belief.

2 Corinthians 5:10:
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil."
It doesn’t say, “Each believer”.

---

On the other hand, 1 Cor. 3:12-15 speaks to the believers - and Purgatory:
*****“If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, *******the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. **
***If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. ***
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”

---

Hmm. First of all, you are wrong about my interpritation being my own. Second, I never said that only believers would be judged at the bema(make assumptions much?). Third, the idea of Purgatory and the selling of indulgences is absolute false teaching, and those who teach it as truth will be judged accordingly. That is also aside from the point of the thread, and thus I will not discuss it further.

Do you always assume that all the stereotypes apply to everyone that isnt Catholic?

Also, you have still avoided answering my questions from Galations. If you cannot answer these questions, then there is a problem. All of these questions were asked of Gentiles, so it has nothing to do with being Jewish. Answer the questions and we can discuss this topic more.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Hmm. First of all, you are wrong about my interpritation being my own. So you say Second, I never said that only believers would be judged at the bema(make assumptions much?). Third, the idea of Purgatory and the selling of indulgences is absolute false teaching, and those who teach it as truth will be judged accordingly. Again according to you That is also aside from the point of the thread, and thus I will not discuss it further.

Do you always assume that all the stereotypes apply to everyone that isnt Catholic?

Also, you have still avoided answering my questions from Galations. If you cannot answer these questions, then there is a problem. All of these questions were asked of Gentiles, so it has nothing to do with being Jewish. Answer the questions and we can discuss this topic more.

 

[protestantman]

Well, if what you say is true, then Calvin wasn’t wrong about everything. This is Catholic teaching that I have given. If any Catholic knows differently, please speak up.

If you agree with this, then why is there still an argument? If your understanding of the word “faith” means “faith and works” since faith and works cannot be separated, then what you are saying is that we are saved by grace through faith and good works. That is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. It is also what Protestants believe because they do not separate faith and works. Catholics do. Arguments against the Catholic position are really just arguing about terminology with a pinch of misunderstanding. Catholics don’t believe that they can earn salvation by works of their own. Just like Protestants.

I agree that they are inseperable. The problem is simple. The fact that you say that salvation is by Faith and works, gives the appearance that salvation is of yourself. Works cannot save anyone. The Bible makes that abundantly clear. “It is by grace we are saved through faith”. Works come after salvation. Works are neccesary to perfect our salvation, through a proccess of sanctification. These are the reasons why I say that salvation is by faith alone. The fact that faith and works are inseperable only means that I WILL produce good fruit once I have recieved my salvation. This is how we can tell who is truly saved, and those who are not.

The problem that most Catholics have with the phrase “Faith Alone”, is that they assume it means that if we have faith, we can continue our sinfull lives. This is absolutely untrue. Any man who recieves salvation by faith, WILL, I repeat WILL, produce good works. It is not an option. The HS makes these changes in every believer. If you know anyone who is saved that is continuing to live in sin, then they are not truly saved. For a bad tree cannot produce good fruio=t and a Good tree cannot produce bad fruit. This is why Paul said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Faith and works are like Fire and smoke. You cannot have smoke(works) without first lighting a fire(faith). Fire will produce smoke. Yet the fire must come first, and does not rely on the smoke to ignite. There is even a very short moment where there is fire without smoke. If you want to make smoke, do you create it of your own doing, or is it a result of the fire you started?

This is why I say that salvation is by Faith alone. For Faith gains salvation, and salvation produces the good works. The order is always
FAITH-SALVATION-WORKS
and if you dont have one of them, then you have none.

 

[protestantman]

Sean_Boyle:
And what of you Sean?
Can you answer Pauls questions, or have you not an answer either?

They are simple questions asked of Gentiles(anyone who is not Jewish) and should be quite simple to answer. Like the question that Christ asked the Pharisees.

1One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2"Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. “Who gave you this authority?”
3He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”

5They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

7So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

8Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
Aparently, If there is a question from John (as it is from the teaching of the Holy Spirit) One should be able to answer it.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

And what of you Sean?
Can you answer Pauls questions, or have you not an answer either?

They are simple questions asked of Gentiles(anyone who is not Jewish) and should be quite simple to answer. Like the question that Christ asked the Pharisees.

1One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2"Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. “Who gave you this authority?”
3He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me, 4John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?”

5They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ 6But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

7So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

8Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
Aparently, If there is a question from John (as it is from the teaching of the Holy Spirit) One should be able to answer it.

Your questions have been answered several times now. If the answer don’t meet with your approval then pray for the grace to understand. There aren’t many other ways that it can be explained to you.

We are saved by God’s Grace “alone”. There is only one “alone” allowed so the idea of “faith alone” remains unbiblical.

Salvation is not obtained unless one preserves until the end. It can not be guarenteed unless a person lives according to the will of God for the rest of their days, with no sin and rely on God Mercy at judgement. Believing otherwise a person would be misguided and wrong to believe that they “have obtained” salvation while still living an earthly life.

 

[Newbie2]

Is faith of yourself? No, its a grace from God. Are works from ourselves? No, they are a grace from God.

We are saved by grace alone; not faith, not works. God offers us the grace to have faith. God offers us the grace to do good works. We accept God’s grace when we have faith. We accept God’s grace when we have faith and do good works in His name. Faith does not **earn **salvation. Works do not **earn **salvation. Only by God’s grace do we gain salvation. How do we gain grace? By faith and works. Not just faith. Not just works. Faith and works. Faith is required to precede works. Works are required to follow faith. These are the only ways to accept God’s grace. We need both.

Well put.

I agree that they are inseperable. The problem is simple. The fact that you say that salvation is by Faith and works, gives the appearance that salvation is of yourself. Works cannot save anyone. The Bible makes that abundantly clear. “It is by grace we are saved through faith”. Works come after salvation. Works are neccesary to perfect our salvation, through a proccess of sanctification. These are the reasons why I say that salvation is by faith alone. The fact that faith and works are inseperable only means that I WILL produce good fruit once I have recieved my salvation. This is how we can tell who is truly saved, and those who are not.

The problem that most Catholics have with the phrase “Faith Alone”, is that they assume it means that if we have faith, we can continue our sinfull lives. This is absolutely untrue. Any man who recieves salvation by faith, WILL, I repeat WILL, produce good works. It is not an option. The HS makes these changes in every believer. If you know anyone who is saved that is continuing to live in sin, then they are not truly saved. For a bad tree cannot produce good fruio=t and a Good tree cannot produce bad fruit. This is why Paul said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

.

Nowhere will you find in Catholic Doctrine of Justification or Salvation a belief that one can earn salvation through works. If Catholic doctrine “gives the appearance that salvation is of yourself.”, then you don’t correctly understand Catholic doctrine.

So…you can tell who’s saved and who isn’t? How is it that one can come to know the mind of the Almighty in this regard?

“Faith alone”, in the hands of some, also negates the concept of free will.

?? What about “once saved, always saved”? What a convenient answer. So are you claiming that if a person is truly saved, they cannot be “unsaved”? If so, being saved takes away their free will. If not, then your claim is that they never could have been truly saved in the first place, right?

 

[CentralFLJames]

?? What about “once saved, always saved”? What a convenient answer. So are you claiming that if a person is truly saved, they cannot be “unsaved”? If so, being saved takes away their free will. If not, then your claim is that they never could have been truly saved in the first place, right?

Don’t make the mistake of equating a fundamentalist’s ability to see all things in absolute terms of black and white with the ability to apply infallible logic that resolves rationally. They can just as easily define black as white or true as false just as quickly as we can point out that what they say contradicts what they do and what Jesus said to do.

After-all, these are the same minds that conjure of such things as:
1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4 Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)
5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

without any of these things being in scripture. And these are the very same that will claim that any 1 of these 5 things “alone” is sufficient but can’t agree which single one “alone” is correct.

James

 

[Newbie2]

Good point.