Faith only?

[geekborj]

My husband was playing golf with his two buddies yesterday. The discussion turned to religion and faith only theology.

One of his friends said something along the lines of:

When Jesus was on the cross, he had the two criminals on either side of him. To the one who believed, Jesus promised eternal life.

They used this to say that faith alone is all that is needed for salvation. I thought my hubby did a good job by saying that it wasn’t him just believing but him also speaking up which is an action. Also he brought up the verse that states that faith without works is dead.

What else can he have said to the above statement. I think that his friends are non-denominational Christians. The talk, from what I understand, was pleasant and an exchange of ideas rather than a bitter, screaming match.

I’m sorry how the match ended.

IMO, the thief did several “works” as a proof of his faith: (1) rebuked the other thief; (2) admitted and accepted his suffering; (3) professed his faith publicly; and (4) asked Jesus to “remember” him once in Paradise. These “works” are the best that he can do at that moment. God does not ask of us extraordinary works. He makes our work extraordinary (that’s grace i think) together with Christ. We become self righteous by pointing how others did NO work to have a Living Faith. Faith and Work should work hand in hand. Just like flesh and spirit makes up a Man, you take out one and it just doesn’t make sense anymore.

 

[ElizaE]

I am ElizaE’s husband, and the discussion I had with these two friends was very telling in that they did not disagree that faith without works is dead. Rather they believed that with true faith, you will perform good works. This is what we believe…

The discussion became quite interesting when we discussed the Eucharist, and Dr. Hahn’s Fourth Cup article. My friend said that the thief on the cross did not have the opportunity to take the Eucharist. He questioned the fact that he did not partake of his body (the sacrificial lamb) and therefore did not complete the heavenly passover. I did not know what to say, but I said that Jesus was God, and he could command someone to heaven because he IS God. Also I gave the example of a baby that had not received baptism or communion and asked if they went to heaven? And then we sat there pondering…probably mostly about the horrible golf game that had occured an hour before.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp (The Fourth Cup article).

 

[elvisman]

I am ElizaE’s husband, and the discussion I had with these two friends was very telling in that they did not disagree that faith without works is dead. Rather they believed that with true faith, you will perform good works. This is what we believe…

The discussion became quite interesting when we discussed the Eucharist, and Dr. Hahn’s Fourth Cup article. My friend said that the thief on the cross did not have the opportunity to take the Eucharist. He questioned the fact that he did not partake of his body (the sacrificial lamb) and therefore did not complete the heavenly passover. I did not know what to say, but I said that Jesus was God, and he could command someone to heaven because he IS God. Also I gave the example of a baby that had not received baptism or communion and asked if they went to heaven? And then we sat there pondering…probably mostly about the horrible golf game that had occured an hour before.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109fea1.asp (The Fourth Cup article).

You are right. He is God and can do anything he wills.
As for the criminal on the cross - he made a spiritual communion with Jesus.
**Also - if your friend was implying that you have to receive the Eucharist to enter heaven - what about Moses and all of the prophets? **
Our entrance into heaven does not depend on whether or not we received the Eucharist. We are saved by the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Also - if your friend was implying that you have to receive the Eucharist to enter heaven - what about Moses and all of the prophets?
**Our entrance into heaven does not **depend on whether or not we received the Eucharist. We are saved by the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

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?

You are saved by both living and believing in Jesus. Disobedience is doing neither.

James

 

[elvisman]

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?

You are saved by both living and believing in Jesus. Disobedience is doing neither.

James

**Actually, you are PARTly correct - and PARTly confused. **
The Catholic Church does INDEED teach that we are saved by Jesus’ death on the cross.

**With your logic, nobody can give a deathbed confession and repent. **
This is NOT what the Church teaches.
**With your logic, nobody would have a case for salvation via invincible ignorance. **
This is NOT what the Church teaches.

I wasn’t making a case for disobeying Jesus about the Bread of life discourse. I was making a case for the criminal on the cross not having the opportunity to have received the Eucharist. He, therefore made a SPRITUAL communion in Christ.

If you say that nobody gets into heaven without having received the Eucharist, you have to surmise that all babies go to hell because they didn’t receive.

**According to Catholic Tradition, the criminal on the cross is referred to as St. Dismas. Saints don’t go to hell. **

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I am ElizaE’s husband, and the discussion I had with these two friends was very telling in that they did not disagree that faith without works is dead. Rather they believed that with true faith, you will perform good works. This is what we believe…

That isnt quite what we believe. The protestant “answer” here is that good works are essentially guaranteed to any “true believer”, when the Bible says they are not (eg Mat 18:32-35; 2 Pt 1:5-9; etc). The fact we see Christians turning to lives of sin in the New Testament (and Paul yelling at them) means good works are required BUT not guaranteed.

 

[geekborj]

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?

You are saved by both living and believing in Jesus. Disobedience is doing neither.

James

I think we have to put the situation in a time frame. Note that this event (in the cross) is not yet the time when the Apostles will “eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.” The last supper was the first time when Jesus instructed the Apostles how to do it.

In case we stick to the “eating” part, how would Protestants say about the Faithful during the Patriarchal Age (e.g. Moses, Abraham, etc)? I think, the criminal (St. Dismas according to another thread below) is just like them, they all demonstrated their Faith by doing something including testimony, rebuking others, and praying to the one true God.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Actually, you are PARTly correct - and PARTly confused.
The Catholic Church does INDEED teach that we are saved by Jesus’ death on the cross.

With your logic, nobody can give a deathbed confession and repent.
This is NOT what the Church teaches.
With your logic, nobody would have a case for salvation via invincible ignorance.
This is NOT what the Church teaches.

**I wasn’t **making a case for disobeying Jesus about the Bread of life discourse. I was making a case for the criminal on the cross not having the opportunity to have received the Eucharist. He, therefore made a SPRITUAL communion in Christ.

If you say that nobody gets into heaven without having received the Eucharist, you have to surmise that all babies go to hell because they didn’t receive.

According to Catholic Tradition, the criminal on the cross is referred to as St. Dismas. Saints don’t go to hell.

My logic has nothing to do with it. I made absolutely no judgement. So you are now into strawman territory. I made no assertion at all of what the church taught here I simply pointed out that you were in complete contradiction to Jesus’ statements and wanted you to reconcile your statements against His commandments - not judge me for being “partially correct” about a thing I did not state about Church Teaching. You are grandstanding.

You appeared to be condoning not receiving Eucharist. I was calling you on the carpet to reconcile how you can directly contradict RCC teaching and the CCC. Are you Catholic? Catholics must partake (worthily) of the Eucharist to be in full communion with The Church as the mystical body of Christ as well as to receive the full graces necessary for Eternal Life.

As for the good thief on the cross you made entirely the wrong case. You might want to revisit the catechism. The good thief received what The Church calls a Baptism of Desire - that wiped away all his sin as if “baptised” and made him eligible for immediate entry into “paradise”. As for other important men in the Old Testament entering heaven without receiving The Eucharist, I didn’t know that the Church canonized Moses and some of the others you mentioned. So unless you have had some mini-rapture to heaven and have come back to enlighten us or had an approved private revelation please don’t set us up for a strawman and then use any reply as an opportunity to pontificate opinion as fact. Moses committed murder and was prevented from entering the promised land. Only God knows with certainty about any soul that The Church has not sainted.

As for deathbed confessions - are you now asserting this is the norm or do you have some super personal insight that tells us anyone has ever gone to heaven as a result of one of these? I personally do believe they happen - but I also think they are very rare since since they require a perfect act of contrition not just lip service during the anxiety of certain death just to cover one’s bases so to speak. At death there are mystical things transpiring that we do not have full revelation on - although our saints tell us quite a bit none of it is core to teaching. I personally believe in the Divine Mercy grace for those death bed conversions. We hold in faith that God will not deny mercy to the truly repentant.

As for babies dieing without receiving Eucharist - they are not yet of the age of consent and are essentially completely innocent and without sin after baptism since they lack the will and mature conscience to freely consent to sin.

As for the OT people - they were under a different covenant all together and are judged by covenant law as best as we can tell. Those that were waiting in “paradise” (not heaven) were waiting for Jesus to conquer death and open heaven. These we believe Jesus taught to when he descended to “the dead” (as scripture attests) so that those judged worthy under the very tough covenant law could then enter heaven. We have incomplete scriptural insight on what other details happened.

But the bottom line here is I did not make a comprehensive statement on CCC. I simply pointed out where you contradicted Jesus’ teaching and was awaiting a reconciliation…
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think we have to put the situation in a time frame. Note that this event (in the cross) is not yet the time when the Apostles will “eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.” The last supper was the first time when Jesus instructed the Apostles how to do it.

In case we stick to the “eating” part, how would Protestants say about the Faithful during the Patriarchal Age (e.g. Moses, Abraham, etc)? I think, the criminal (St. Dismas according to another thread below) is just like them, they all demonstrated their Faith by doing something including testimony, rebuking others, and praying to the one true God.

I agree in general. Those dieting up to the point of Jesus’ death were under a moral/law form of Old Covenant Justice. This was a harsh standard since by the time Jesus arrives the Jews had managed to turn Moses’ original 10 commandments into a complex legal system with at least 613 different laws (many more actually) and a complex set of systems based on oral tradition and formal teachings. This was why Jesus was so angry at the Pharisees and Sadducee’s since they were entrapping God’s people with legalities that sent probably everyone to hell if God applied a strict interpretation on souls when they died.

I differ though that Protestants were just like the good thief. Protestants get baptised - and that is great. That makes them sort of like the good thief - if they died right after that. But the problem is Protestants have no sacrament of penance to get sins forgiven that happen after they are baptised. Most people, even religious people, probably commit dozens of venial sins daily. Over time even small sins (being angry with some one, cutting out of work early and charging full time, not praying reverently, cussing, idle gossip, over eating, frivolous use of gifts/money etc.) add up and easily lead a person to commit a more serious sin in short order (adultery, lust, fornication, masturbation, murder, abortion, any of the 10 commandments, etc. etc.).

I don’t think most people get it - the way to hell is wide and the path to heaven is narrow. One MUST go to confession regularly and pray regularly and receive the sacraments regularly. It’s all part of an integrated concept called “living IN CHRIST”. It is NOT sufficient to just “believe in Christ” having the power to save you. Simon Magus believed Christ and His Apostles had that “magic” power. But Simon did not rally believe In Christ nor did he live IN Christ. If one is not in communion with Christ through the sacrament of Eucharist one is NOT living IN Christ one is only paying lip service to Jesus.

James

 

[geekborj]

Thanks James. Indeed. And allow me to add in agreement.

I differ though that Protestants were just like the good thief. Protestants get baptised - and that is great. That makes them sort of like the good thief - if they died right after that. But the problem is Protestants have no sacrament of penance to get sins forgiven that happen after they are baptised. Most people, even religious people, probably commit dozens of venial sins daily. Over time even small sins (being angry with some one, cutting out of work early and charging full time, not praying reverently, cussing, idle gossip, over eating, frivolous use of gifts/money etc.) add up and easily lead a person to commit a more serious sin in short order (adultery, lust, fornication, masturbation, murder, abortion, any of the 10 commandments, etc. etc.).

I don’t think most people get it - the way to hell is wide and the path to heaven is narrow. One MUST go to confession regularly and pray regularly and receive the sacraments regularly. It’s all part of an integrated concept called “living IN CHRIST”. It is NOT sufficient to just “believe in Christ” having the power to save you. Simon Magus believed Christ and His Apostles had that “magic” power. But Simon did not rally believe In Christ nor did he live IN Christ. If one is not in communion with Christ through the sacrament of Eucharist one is NOT living IN Christ one is only paying lip service to Jesus.

James

Indeed as St. Paul said in Phil 2:12ff and that if we love Jesus, let us follow ALL His commandments. His commandments includes following the voice of those Jesus has appointed (hence “apostles”) and His Church.

For me the Protestants are like the lost sheep of the flock. They need instructions much as all Catholics do. The problem is that they chose not to follow most of the important parts (Sacraments for example). We should not “condemn” non-Catholic Christians but rather be an example and be instruments of God in guiding them back to His true Church.

We shall continue to pray for us all.

 

[elvisman]

My logic has nothing to do with it. I made absolutely no judgement. So you are now into strawman territory. I made no assertion at all of what the church taught here I simply pointed out that you were in complete contradiction to Jesus’ statements and wanted you to reconcile your statements against His commandments - not judge me for being “partially correct” about a thing I did not state about Church Teaching. You are grandstanding.

You appeared to be condoning not receiving Eucharist. I was calling you on the carpet to reconcile how you can directly contradict RCC teaching and the CCC. Are you Catholic? Catholics must partake (worthily) of the Eucharist to be in full communion with The Church as the mystical body of Christ as well as to receive the full graces necessary for Eternal Life.

As for the good thief on the cross you made entirely the wrong case. You might want to revisit the catechism. The good thief received what The Church calls a Baptism of Desire - that wiped away all his sin as if “baptised” and made him eligible for immediate entry into “paradise”. As for other important men in the Old Testament entering heaven without receiving The Eucharist, I didn’t know that the Church canonized Moses and some of the others you mentioned. So unless you have had some mini-rapture to heaven and have come back to enlighten us or had an approved private revelation please don’t set us up for a strawman and then use any reply as an opportunity to pontificate opinion as fact. Moses committed murder and was prevented from entering the promised land. Only God knows with certainty about any soul that The Church has not sainted.

As for deathbed confessions - are you now asserting this is the norm or do you have some super personal insight that tells us anyone has ever gone to heaven as a result of one of these? I personally do believe they happen - but I also think they are very rare since since they require a perfect act of contrition not just lip service during the anxiety of certain death just to cover one’s bases so to speak. At death there are mystical things transpiring that we do not have full revelation on - although our saints tell us quite a bit none of it is core to teaching. I personally believe in the Divine Mercy grace for those death bed conversions. We hold in faith that God will not deny mercy to the truly repentant.

As for babies dieing without receiving Eucharist - they are not yet of the age of consent and are essentially completely innocent and without sin after baptism since they lack the will and mature conscience to freely consent to sin.

As for the OT people - they were under a different covenant all together and are judged by covenant law as best as we can tell. Those that were waiting in “paradise” (not heaven) were waiting for Jesus to conquer death and open heaven. These we believe Jesus taught to when he descended to “the dead” (as scripture attests) so that those judged worthy under the very tough covenant law could then enter heaven. We have incomplete scriptural insight on what other details happened.

But the bottom line here is I did not make a comprehensive statement on CCC. I simply pointed out where you contradicted Jesus’ teaching and was awaiting a reconciliation…
James

Calm down, friend. I think you’re a little overly-sensitive.
First of all, I wasn’t judging you and I am not grandstanding. You make some good points.

Second of all, we know that Moses isn’t in hell because he came down with Elijah and conversed with Jesus at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

As for babies and deathbed confessions, I was merely pointing out that not everybody who enters heaven will have received the Eucharist. And, while we’re at it, I think that YOU should revisit the Catechism if you are making the argument that EVERYBODY who goes to heaven MUST receive the Eucharist. The Catechism holds that those who are invincibly ignorant may be saved.

I’m not arguing against the necessity of the Eucharist. Should everybody receive the Eucharist if they want life - if they want salvation? ABSOLUTELY.
Has EVERYBODY in heaven received the Eucharist before they died? ** No.**

 

[CentralFLJames]

Calm down, friend. I think you’re a little overly-sensitive.
**First of all, I wasn’t judging **you and I am not grandstanding. You make some good points.

Second of all, we know that Moses isn’t in hell because he came down with Elijah and conversed with Jesus at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

As for babies and deathbed confessions, I was merely pointing out that not everybody who enters heaven will have received the Eucharist. And, while we’re at it, I think that YOU should revisit the Catechism if you are making the argument that EVERYBODY who goes to heaven MUST receive the Eucharist. The Catechism holds that those who are invincibly ignorant may be saved.

I’m not arguing against the necessity of the Eucharist. Should everybody receive the Eucharist if they want life - if they want salvation? ABSOLUTELY.
Has EVERYBODY in heaven received the Eucharist before they died? ** No.**

OK, you are getting better now. You are making a conditional strawman argument just in case I think that. I suppose that’s an improvement. But in my original post you will not see the word hell explicitly anywhere in my question to you.

Here is what I said verbatum:

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?

You are saved by both living and believing in Jesus. Disobedience is doing neither.

James

Yes I admit I am a little sensitive when I hear Catholics promoting things that are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm that can land somone directly in hell; or when somone puts words or ideas in my mouth that I never stated.

As for the invincibly ignorant bit, yes, that is church teaching. But it is a very weak consolative gesture extending out of empathy with God’s Mercy. That exception has no guarantees for anyone with a free conscience who is not mentally ill and who EVER had the opportunity to know the truth but turned a blind eye to it deliberately to remain in ignorance. Being maliciously ignorant or not acting out of true conscience and grace to learn the truth or rejecting it outright (like protestants do in these forum discussions when rebutting Catholics) removes the excuse. Ultimately, only God can judge - but it is extremely dangerous for anyone to imply that Eucharist is optional. The church gives NO guidance on how many, if any souls, escape hell through the excuse of invincible ignorance. My personal opinion is that only mentally ill and genuinely mentally brainwashed individuals in the fundamental sects and those who are not living in Christian areas with mass communication come under this area. Put it to you this way, I suspect that if somone consciously rejects teaching on The Eucharist that God permits that person to fall progressively into other grave sin since that initial rejection is itself a grave rejection that cuts them off from grace.

We should be careful to never give the impression that one can gain heaven without eating The Eucharist as if its just an option. It is not - its an exception and probably a rare one. That’s how your original post came across.

I think you agree yes?

James

 

[protestantman]

Salvation comes from faith, and not by works. This is the statement of the apostle Paul. This is an in-arguable point, as it is spelled out in plain english.

The passage “faith without works is dead” is not a valid argument against faith alone.

Faith will ALWAYS produce works. These works are identified as the fruits of the Spirit, in Galations.

So, If you truly have Faith, then two things ARE ABSOLUTE.

1 - Salvation
2 - Fruits of the Spirit

Both are the RESULT of FAITH. More to the point, good works are IMPOSSIBLE without salvation. The point in Timothy, is that if a man claims he has Faith, then his works will be his testimony. If the man has no works, than he is a false prophet and a liar.

Remember these verses from Ephesians 2 cannot be denied.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast

Nor can you deny Galations 2 when it says that considering works as part of salvation is FOOLISH.

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”** 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.”[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Now answer this question.
Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?**

 

[elvisman]

OK, you are getting better now. You are making a conditional strawman argument just in case I think that. I suppose that’s an improvement. But in my original post you will not see the word hell explicitly anywhere in my question to you.

Here is what I said verbatum:

Yes I admit I am a little sensitive when I hear Catholics promoting things that are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm that can land somone directly in hell; or when somone puts words or ideas in my mouth that I never stated.

As for the invincibly ignorant bit, yes, that is church teaching. But it is a very weak consolative gesture extending out of empathy with God’s Mercy. That exception has no guarantees for anyone with a free conscience who is not mentally ill and who EVER had the opportunity to know the truth but turned a blind eye to it deliberately to remain in ignorance. Being maliciously ignorant or not acting out of true conscience and grace to learn the truth or rejecting it outright (like protestants do in these forum discussions when rebutting Catholics) removes the excuse. Ultimately, only God can judge - but it is extremely dangerous for anyone to imply that Eucharist is optional. The church gives NO guidance on how many, if any souls, escape hell through the excuse of invincible ignorance. My personal opinion is that only mentally ill and genuinely mentally brainwashed individuals in the fundamental sects and those who are not living in Christian areas with mass communication come under this area. Put it to you this way, I suspect that if somone consciously rejects teaching on The Eucharist that God permits that person to fall progressively into other grave sin since that initial rejection is itself a grave rejection that cuts them off from grace.

We should be careful to never give the impression that one can gain heaven without eating The Eucharist as if its just an option. It is not - its an exception and probably a rare one. That’s how your original post came across.

I think you agree yes?

James

**I agree with you, James. **
I think that you misunderstood what I was saying and that maybe I could have worded it better.

**I disagree with blanket statements or beliefs like, “You must received the eucharist to make it into heaven.” **I know you didn’t state it exactly like that, but I perceived this to be your position. As you replied, there are exceptions.

When you say things like, “My personal opinion”, as it pertains to invincible ignorance, realize that it is just your opinion. The Church doesn’t see it that way as it is slightly broader than you view on the matter. I DO agree with you on those who are maliciously ignorant, though.
Peace.

 

[elvisman]

Salvation comes from faith, and not by works. This is the statement of the apostle Paul. This is an in-arguable point, as it is spelled out in plain english.

The passage “faith without works is dead” is not a valid argument against faith alone.

Faith will ALWAYS produce works. These works are identified as the fruits of the Spirit, in Galations.

So, If you truly have Faith, then two things ARE ABSOLUTE.

1 - Salvation
2 - Fruits of the Spirit

Both are the RESULT of FAITH. More to the point, good works are IMPOSSIBLE without salvation. The point in Timothy, is that if a man claims he has Faith, then his works will be his testimony. If the man has no works, than he is a false prophet and a liar.

Remember these verses from Ephesians 2 cannot be denied.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast

Nor can you deny Galations 2 when it says that considering works as part of salvation is FOOLISH.

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
6Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”** 9So those who have faith **are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.”[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Now answer this question.
Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

That point is moot. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Law.
We must display OBEDIENCE to faith (Romans 1:5, 16:26). Mere spoken belief is not anough.

**Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:2, 13: **
"If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing."
"So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."
**Notice he DIDN’T **say “faith”?

 

[protestantman]

Yet Paul states that salvation is not of yourselves.

You did not answer the Last Question.

You ignore what Paul said to the Galations.

So again

Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

 

[protestantman]

Also, can you answer Pauls other questions?

After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

And now for my own questions.

Is it possible to produce the fruits of the Spirit, if you have not yet recieved the Spirit?

Are works a result of human effort?
Does faith produce works, or is it possible to produce good works without faith?

Where does Paul specify that he is talking about Mosaic law alone?

Are the commandments moot? Is the book of the Law moot?

 

[protestantman]

Paul also makes another point in Galations.

5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Here I argue that your reference to 1 Cor. 13 does not argue my point at all. Together with the above, it solidifies my point (Pauls point rather)

Faith is EXPRESSED through Love. So yes, Love is the most important, but like works, is a RESULT OF FAITH.

 

[protestantman]

The big picture is this:

God sent his son to save all who would have faith.
If you truly have faith, you will express it with Love and other good works.
You will take part in 2 Jugments when Christ returns.

The first will be the Judgement of Salvation.
If you have faith in Christ, you will be deemed righteous, and recieve eternity in Heaven. If you do not have faith in Christ, you will be deemed a wicked servant, and will recieve an eternity in the lake of fire.

The Second is the Judgement of Works.
This is a test by fire. Your works will be put into a heap and burned. You will then recieve rewards for that which remains.
Anything that is a result of human nature will burn like the chaffe. Anything of the Spirit will be refined as Gold or Silver.

Works and Love are a result of the Grace of God to those who believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God.

Do I believe that since salvation comes by faith alone, that I can continue to live in sin? NO, absolutely not. If I have faith, then the HS will produce good works in me. If the HS has not done this, then I do not truly have faith.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God said in James 2:24 that “Faith Alone” does not save.

If you don’t believe that you don’t believe God.

It really is that simple!