Good work = salvation is it true?

[GreggAlvarez]

A more accurate wording for my representation of a TB is:

A TB WILL DO good works. They do these good works as a result of being Saved and receiving a new heart. They do not do them in order to be saved.

Catholics do not do works “in order to be saved” either. How do they get that TB faith in the first place? By doing absolutely nothing or by doing good works or what?

By the way, you said “must do” in the post I responded. I was only taking from your post.

If someone professes to be a Believer and does not do good works (i.e. does not show fruit of the Spirit, but rather continual works of the flesh), then they should not be recognized as TBs. It is probable that they have not been Saved and therefore have never been in the faith.

Who is the one doing the recognizing? Is it us or God or both?

If us, then could we be mistaken? If God, then why bother guessing what He thinks?

In my understanding A(good works) is not required to obtain B(faith). A(good works) are a result of B(faith).

I don’t disagree here.

So, Faith and good works go hand in hand. You can’t have faith without works.

You have the wrong order of things if you are basing off my posts. The order is Grace/Faith/Salvation/Good Works

A - Grace
B - Faith
C - Salvation
D - Good Works

A is required for B-D, B is the result of A and required for C-D, C is the result of A-B and required for D, D is the result of A-C

Ok, but good works are an absolutely necessary part of this tree. No good works means there is or was no salvation. Right?

If they never repent and return to a God fearing life then it will be known that this person was never a TB and had been a FB for 30 years. They were never Saved.

So, God could make one seem like He was a TB and then come to find out, it was all a fluke. If a person honestly believes he is a TB, that it was God-given, then he falls from this 30 years later, that would be considered deception… And this would not be the TB’s fault because they did charity, prayed, gave way more than received, etc… That would be God decieving this person.

If 30 years from now you started disbelieving things and falling into a life of sin (God forbid), would you or would you not have considered yourself the TB that you are now?

If yes, then that is proof that OSAS is untrue.

If no, then God did some major deception because you posted that you considered yourself a TB.

TBs do sin, but they will be repentant of this sin and return to right standing with the Lord. However, in their fall to sin, they never lose faith or Salvation.

Even if they did an unrepentant homicide murder? He was a nice and dandy TB, and then all of a sudden, he goes psycho and kill people and shoots himself right after.

You can’t say he was an FB because he was unselfishly in those good works which Ephesians 2:10 talks about. This murder didn’t even cross his mind until he just snapped.

If a person “falls away from the faith” as in, no longer believes Christ is Lord, then they never had true faith and never had been Saved. They were FBs.

So, that person had no assurance then…

 

[PRmerger]

So, that person had no assurance then…

To which, I predict, l v l will respond: but God knows and has assurance.

And we, or course, will respond: Of course! No Catholic disagrees with that! And if that’s what you mean by OSAS (and it’s a novel interpretation of OSAS to be sure!) then we all give a hearty amen to that version of OSAS!

We simply don’t believe (and it seems that l v l agrees with us) that once a person accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior, that this person now can say, “If I died today I have the assurance that I will go to heaven.”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

He will never let them fall from Salvation. From this point on they will never lose faith in Jesus as their Savior, they will persevere in the faith until death…

Why would they have to “persevere in the faith” if Jesus will not let them lose it? That would be just as much perseverance as one needs in Heaven.

The person is supposed to work out his/her Salvation in fear and trembling. The assurance is in the hands of the Lord. OSAS does not depend on the assurance of the individual person. The assurance is upheld by a God that will not fail to Save those He chooses to Save.

This has been our point ever since OSAS was made up a few centuries ago.

And indeed a person is supposed work out his/her salvation with fear and trembling. Another scriptural refutation of OSAS.

Again. I sure could be. But if God has Saved me, then I have a True Faith in Christ and it is a faith that I will continue in until death. If the Lord has yet to Save me, then I have a false faith and if the Lord never Saves me then I will fall “out of the faith” (quotes bc I was never really in the faith), or continue in my false delusion till death where I will learn that I never had true faith in Christ and realize that I was following the lusts of my own flesh and not the fruits of the Spirit.

This god you speak of sounds really decieving. This is certainly not the same God you and I believe in.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I have no problem with your expansion of my more simplified explanation of Catholic sotierology. I appreciate your point that the priests absolves you of your sins. Perhaps it would be helpful to share the prayer of absolution the priest says when he forgives your sins:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and resurrection of His Son
(2 Cor. 5:19; cf. Rom. 11:15; Col.1:20)has reconciled the world to Himself
(John 20:21-23)and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins;
(2 Cor. 5:18-20)through the ministry of the Church
(Luke 7:50; Col. 1:14)may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, +
and of the Holy Spirit.

So, Indeed, when you leave the confessional, you know you are back in the state of grace. This is the assurance that our separated brethren crave and claim on the basis of faith alone. Unfortunately, they don’t have the scriptural (as shown above) or Traditional support for their claims, unlike the Catholic Church.’ And they also fail to recognize that man always has a choice to accept or reject God right up until they die. So we know that we must continue to stay in the state of grace and if we fall from grace, we must return to the sacrament to be reconciled.

And yes, the Church teaches that God is not bound by his sacraments. But it also teaches that Jesus put them in place for a reason and that to disregard them is to disregard Christ. So lets be careful. Yes, God can save anyone he wishes but it is our duty to teach what the church teaches and that is clearly to partake of the sacraments if you want the grace required to get to heaven. While there may be exceptions, it would be wrong to advise anyone to bank on them.

 

[I_v_I]

This is completely different. You are adding to scripture to change its meaning to fit your own personal theology. You know that this is not helping you .

I guess it’s good for you, me and everyone else who believe in the “Trinity” that JWs are dead wrong when they make the same exact statement… Is it at all possible that you could be wrong too?

Again,
How many churches can you find in the new testament that were infallible. 1. The one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which taught and continues to teach the one true faith given to the apostles by Jesus himself… There was one Church made up of many local communities.

I’ve never seen scripture call Jesus’ preaching to the apostles Catholic. And I’ve never read in scripture that the only true Church would be called Catholic.

“local communities” were a part of the churches you speak of in your next quote.

How many can you find that were screwed up: All of them. While they taught the truth, humans being what they are, they had a hard time living up to the teachings of Christ as a group.

The problems didn’t just come because people couldn’t live up to the correct teachings, they also came because the correct teachings were misunderstood. So even when they thought they were teaching correctly the teachings were in error. Additionally, there were many false teachers to contend with inside and outside the church that manipulated the correct teachings from the apostles causing confusion. These issues led to “traditions of men” being incorrectly taught as scripture. I have little doubt some of these traditions are still being taught today.

Why do I think that early church teachings are infallible? Because they come directly from Jesus through the Apostles.

This is not true. Though “early church teachings” originated from Jesus and the apostles, we can’t say they all came “directly” from them. Many misunderstood teachings came indirectly from them through fallible men or indirectly from them through false teachers. There were obviously misunderstood teachings from the apostles that became “early church teachings”.

You judge the church on the basis of its saints, those that follow the teaching to its fullness, not on the basis of the sinners, those that don’t. And remember, the Church is a hospital for sinners.

I’m not referring to “the sinners” of the church I’m referring to local church leadership.

 

[Philthy]

The OSAS adherent frequently goes into an apoplectic spiral of denial, incoherence and selective responding when the issues clearly relating to losing salvation are addressed in Scripture are presented. IMO the clearest Scripture relating to loss of salvation (fall from grace) is in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. It is very straightforward in it’s clarity: the Galatian church had received the gospel directly from Paul; they believed it in faith and received the spirit (ie true believers). They then were being tempted by error and Paul warns them of their peril with respect to salvation.

"…to the churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"

Paul indicates that God is their “Father”, and Jesus is their “Lord”

Gal 3:2"I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?

Paul is employing the use of a literary form known as rhetoric: he knows the answer to his question and he knows they know it as well - he is using it to remind them of it: they received the Spirit from faith in what they heard (and not from works of the law). Paul’s point, as we will see, in bringing this up is to warn them that their clinging to the law jeopardizes their salvation. We are not quite their yet, but we’ll get there. For now what’s important is that they heard the gospel preached by Paul, had faith (ie believed) and God sent them the Holy Spirit which they received: they are “true believers”. And that is the point for this thread. Let’s continue…

Gal 3:3 Are you so stupid?c After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?

Paul again indicates that they had begun in the Spirit, but laments that they are now “ending with the flesh”. In context, this “ending with the flesh” is a reference to their turning away from the Gospel of grace he preached to them and towards a distortion of it preached by others. These others were claiming that one needed to be circumcised to be justified.

Gal 3:26-27; 4:6 For through faith you are all children of God* in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ…you are all one in Christ Jesus…As proof that you are children,* God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

Paul’s intended point is to emphasize that it is “through faith” that they are “children of God - in Christ Jesus” and not through the law. I am using these verses to show that Paul addresses them as “true believers” in I v I’s terminology. This is important because I v I has maintained that “true believers” cannot lose their salvation (ie fall from grace in Catholic terms). I v I must maintain such a position in order to uphold the A portion of the doctrine of OSAS. It will become obvious that Paul believes nothing of the sort. After definitively asserting that they are children of God through faith (ie true believers) Paul now lets them know that persisting in trying to gain justification through the law (circumcision) will cause them to fall from grace and be separated from Christ. If I v I’s version of salvation were true, such comments should never appear in Scripture.
But they do - repeatedly.

For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery

Yoke of slavery = the law.
Gal 5:2:

It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you…You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Paul says in no uncertain terms that their behavior (trying to attain justification through parts of the law - circumcision) will cause them to be separated from Christ and to fall from grace. You are not saved if you have fallen from grace - you have lost your salvation. It is impossible to be saved if you are separated from Christ. This is clearly a case of “true believers” being warned that their actions can have salvific consequences and it really obliterates the OSAS nonsense. I have heard the most ridiculous claims from otherwise intelligent people when attempting to defend OSAS in light of this and other letters from Paul. They’ll say things like, “Well if they were true believers then God would prevent them from having themselves circumcised” But if that were the case, then why would Paul write the letter?? It simply makes no sense, but once they cling to that theology it is very difficult form them to see their error. It’s quite sad really. Anyhow, I hope this helps for those of you seeking to know the truth.
The truth is that salvation is a life long event for the vast majority of us. It has a beginning (coming to faith/Baptism), a middle (living the Christian life by grace through perseverance in faith, hope and love aided by the Sacraments) and an end (dying in a state of grace, being judged worthy of Heaven for all eternity by the merits of Christ cross). While the beginning of salvation is critical, the middle aspect of perseverance is also and to deny it’s full importance (as the OSAS adherents do) is to jeopardize one’s salvation. And that is the gospel truth!

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

**As a reminder, we have no comment from I vs I **on my claim(see post 144) that part of God’s Sovereign Will is that our free will moral choices have eternal (ie salvific) consequences. After all, if God sovereignly declares it, then it is God’s Sovereign Will for it to be so.
My pointing this out is the most direct counter to I v I’s claim that God’s Sovereignty and our ability to make free will choices that have eternal (ie salvific) consequences cannot coexist since it would undermine God’s Sovereignty. I v I has nothing to say about this?

In addition, he never commented on my claim to have a prophetic knowledge of God’s Sovereign Will by my perfectly accurate prediction of what God would Sovereignly will me to post on a future post (see posts 170, 171 and 172). How else, according to I v I’s understanding of God’s Sovereignty in controlling all events, could I possibly know the future except by knowing God’s Will? And yet I v I spoke of God’s “revealed” will and God’s “hidden” Will. Unless I’m mistaken, I have, by my little prediction, demonstrated a knowledge of God’s hidden will, which should not happen. I v I has nothing to say about this??

God’s Will be done!

 

[paul_c]

**As a reminder, we have no comment from I vs I **on my claim(see post 144) that part of God’s Sovereign Will is that our free will moral choices have eternal (ie salvific) consequences. After all, if God sovereignly declares it, then it is God’s Sovereign Will for it to be so.
My pointing this out is the most direct counter to I v I’s claim that God’s Sovereignty and our ability to make free will choices that have eternal (ie salvific) consequences cannot coexist since it would undermine God’s Sovereignty. I v I has nothing to say about this?

In addition, he never commented on my claim to have a prophetic knowledge of God’s Sovereign Will by my perfectly accurate prediction of what God would Sovereignly will me to post on a future post (see posts 170, 171 and 172). How else, according to I v I’s understanding of God’s Sovereignty in controlling all events, could I possibly know the future except by knowing God’s Will? And yet I v I spoke of God’s “revealed” will and God’s “hidden” Will. Unless I’m mistaken, I have, by my little prediction, demonstrated a knowledge of God’s hidden will, which should not happen. I v I has nothing to say about this??

God’s Will be done!

Philthy, No one is obligated to answer anyone else on this board. He is absorbing a lot right now. Let him digest it. He’s come a long way already. Be patient. answer his questions and let the Holy Spirit lead him.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
This is completely different. You are adding to scripture to change its meaning to fit your own personal theology. You know that this is not helping you .

It always comes down to the credibility of the sources. The Catholic church can show continuity of leadership and doctrine back to Jesus through the early church fathers. The Jehovah Witnesses can make no such claims.
.

Quote:
Again,
How many churches can you find in the new testament that were infallible. 1. The one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which taught and continues to teach the one true faith given to the apostles by Jesus himself… There was one Church made up of many local communities.

Not everything is in scripture. Catholic means universal. Jesus sent the apostles out to preach to all the nations, hence it was to become the universal church. Prior to that, it was called " the Way"

“local communities” were a part of the churches you speak of in your next quote.

yes, of course they were.

Quote:
How many can you find that were screwed up: All of them. While they taught the truth, humans being what they are, they had a hard time living up to the teachings of Christ as a group.

This is inciteful of you. Yes, the church was fighting heresies from its earliest days. That’s why there had to be someone that the entire church could trust to teach the truth. That person is the Pope, who is protected from God. He teaches the bishops and they teach the preists and the priests teach us. And yes, sometimes they teach falsehoods and it is the job of the magesterium (the Pope and the Bishops) to correct them. Catholic Tradition is the common thread of all these teachings back 2000 years.

Quote:
Why do I think that early church teachings are infallible? Because they come directly from Jesus through the Apostles.

yes, but the teachings that they all share in common are trustworthy and are the heart of Catholic Tradition.

Quote:
You judge the church on the basis of its saints, those that follow the teaching to its fullness, not on the basis of the sinners, those that don’t. And remember, the Church is a hospital for sinners

You are perhaps too hard on the local church leadership. Paul and Peter and James never mentioned any specific church leaders in their critiques…

 

[I_v_I]

This is quite peculiar. My post was #251. Your question was posed in #256.

Not sure how you think I could answer a question you had yet to ask.

:coffeeread:

Once again PR you are wrong. And wrong about such easily searchable information… here I’ll help so all you have to do is point and click.

Original Statement
212

Direct Question
229

Evidence of PR not taking the little time required to read a short paragraph
232

I v I correcting your misunderstanding from lack of reading
237

PR’s continued misunderstanding due to the original lack of reading
250

I v I asking the question again with even more specifics
256

and on and on…

 

[I_v_I]

**As a reminder, we have no comment from I vs I **on my claim(see post 144) that part of God’s Sovereign Will is that our free will moral choices have eternal (ie salvific) consequences. After all, if God sovereignly declares it, then it is God’s Sovereign Will for it to be so.
My pointing this out is the most direct counter to I v I’s claim that God’s Sovereignty and our ability to make free will choices that have eternal (ie salvific) consequences cannot coexist since it would undermine God’s Sovereignty. I v I has nothing to say about this?

lol. You are just as bad as PR…

you wrote (in post 144)

PRmerger eloquently and gently put forward the challenge that if our actions don’t have consequences - if they don’t affect God or salvific issues - then why do we pray for ourselves, others, change, etc?

lol. Philthy, I had no idea the point you were trying to make then, nor do I know now. I don’t even know how to comment on this??? Maybe if you reword it I can.

While I don’t answer or respond to everything here, I think I have done a pretty good job of keeping up. There is one of me and several of you.

That being said, I’ve asked a direct question (post 256) and have yet to receive an answer from you, PR or Steve b. Should we put that on the record books???

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I guess it’s good for you, me and everyone else who believe in the “Trinity” that JWs are dead wrong when they make the same exact statement… Is it at all possible that you could be wrong too?

“I guess it’s too good for you…”? No, don’t go there. Anybody and everybody can and does make that same rebuttal. Let’s keep this objective, yeah?

But yes, its possible for us to be wrong. But not the Catholic Church.

I’ve never seen scripture call Jesus’ preaching to the apostles Catholic. And I’ve never read in scripture that the only true Church would be called Catholic.

I’ve never seen a Scripture passage saying Jesus used “Trinity”, or “Only Scripture”, or “Once Saved, Always Saved”, or “Faith Alone”… So, according to your argument, these would be wrong.

No? Well then stop using that line of unreasoning, lest you become Catholic!

The problems didn’t just come because people couldn’t live up to the correct teachings, they also came because the correct teachings were misunderstood. So even when they thought they were teaching correctly the teachings were in error. Additionally, there were many false teachers to contend with inside and outside the church that manipulated the correct teachings from the apostles causing confusion. These issues led to “traditions of men” being incorrectly taught as scripture. I have little doubt some of these traditions are still being taught today.

This is where the Holy Spirit starts playing some defense.

This is not true. Though “early church teachings” originated from Jesus and the apostles, we can’t say they all came “directly” from them. Many misunderstood teachings came indirectly from them through fallible men or indirectly from them through false teachers. There were obviously misunderstood teachings from the apostles that became “early church teachings”.

If they were from the Apostles, Jesus breath (Holy Spirit) in John 20 would have protected it from any misunderstanding. Otherwise, them teaching with all authority would have brought the Church down which Jesus promised wouldn’t happen in Matthew 16 (I think, Peter and the keys part).

 

[PRmerger]

lol. You are just as bad as PR…

Just a friendly warning, l v l. This could be construed by the mods as being rude.

It is good for you to be here in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, to bring up questions you may have never considered, and to continue to refute your objections to (what you think is) Catholicism.

So it would be a shame to have you banned because of uncharitable remarks.

 

[PRmerger]

Once again PR you are wrong. And wrong about such easily searchable information… here I’ll help so all you have to do is point and click.

Original Statement
212

Direct Question
229

Answered in post # 232

Evidence of PR not taking the little time required to read a short paragraph
232

If you say so.

I v I correcting your misunderstanding from lack of reading
237

Except that you really did ask me to point out verses in Scripture that you have excluded.

And I happily complied.

PR’s continued misunderstanding due to the original lack of reading
250

Again, if you say so.

I v I asking the question again with even more specifics
256

and on and on…

I will again refer you to the article I originally cited, and provide some excerpts.

catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

We’ve mentioned that we need sanctifying grace in our souls if we’re to be equipped for heaven. Another way of saying this is that we need to be justified. “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a forensic (i.e., purely declaratory) legal declaration by God that the sinner is now “justified.” If you “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” he declares you justified, though he doesn’t really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you’re eligible for heaven.

Incidentally, could you please answer the question that I posed here:

Even if he didn’t repent, he’s still in? His soul is pure? He is clean?

Seriously?

and repeated here:

So what about the TB in your hypothetical, who commits a mortal sin and dies of a heart attack before he is able to repent?

In your paradigm, as you stated above, this TB can certainly sin–so there’s no arguing that this murderer is not a TB–and you believe that this murderer still goes to heaven, yes?**

So how do you reconcile that with the fact that nothing unclean can enter heaven? Is this TB’s soul lily white at the time of death?

** (As I type this it sends shivers down my spine–the thought that some believe an unrepentant murderer could be enjoying the Beatific Vision. A more diabolical notion I have never heard!)

and again (!) here:

And what about nothing unclean being able to enter heaven?

Is murder on the soul still considered being clean?

Specifically, I’d like to know how you reconcile a murderer with an unclean soul being in heaven with Revelation 21:27.

BTW, kudos to you for sticking around and being the lone voice of Calvinism here. I imagine it’s not easy being the minority in this situation. And I get that it’s hard to answer every question thrown your way.

 

[paul_c]

Answered in post # 232

If you say so.

Except that you really did ask me to point out verses in Scripture that you have excluded.

And I happily complied.

Again, if you say so.

I will again refer you to the article I originally cited, and provide some excerpts.

catholic.com/tracts/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

We’ve mentioned that we need sanctifying grace in our souls if we’re to be equipped for heaven. Another way of saying this is that we need to be justified. “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a forensic (i.e., purely declaratory) legal declaration by God that the sinner is now “justified.” If you “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” he declares you justified, though he doesn’t really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you’re eligible for heaven.

Incidentally, could you please answer the question that I posed here:

and repeated here:

and again (!) here:

Specifically, I’d like to know how you reconcile a murderer with an unclean soul being in heaven with Revelation 21:27.

BTW, kudos to you for sticking around and being the lone voice of Calvinism here. I imagine it’s not easy being the minority in this situation. And I get that it’s hard to answer every question thrown your way.

Note, I v I does not recognize himself as a Calvinist despite espousing some similar doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

Note, I v I does not recognize himself as a Calvinist despite espousing some similar doctrines.

I stand corrected.

So kudos to l v l for being the lone voice opposing Catholics here and sticking around despite being the minority!

 

[paul_c]

Just a friendly warning, l v l. This could be construed by the mods as being rude.

It is good for you to be here in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, to bring up questions you may have never considered, and to continue to refute your objections to (what you think is) Catholicism.

So it would be a shame to have you banned because of uncharitable remarks.

Seriously, you guys don’t need to get personal about this. Just answer I v I’s questions. He’s drinking through a fire hose right now and he’s finding out that much of what he thought about Catholicism was actually in error. Be patient and charitable and if he says something that bothers you, just let it go. That will be the best way to witness to the faith…

And for what its worth, I don’t think he’s opposing Catholics. I think he’s simply trying to learn the truth and he’s testing what he believes.

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously, you guys don’t need to get personal about this. Just answer I v I’s questions. He’s drinking through a fire hose right now and he’s finding out that much of what he thought about Catholicism was actually in error. Be patient and charitable and if he says something that bothers you, just let it go. That will be the best way to witness to the faith…

And for what its worth, I don’t think he’s opposing Catholics. I think he’s simply trying to learn the truth and he’s testing what he believes.

Again, my bad: I should have said “opposing Catholicism” not “opposing Catholics.”

Now, as for giving him a friendly warning, I am not getting “personal”, but only helping him out. I always hate to see posters banned, esp. right when we’re in the middle of getting somewhere and giving them some things that make them go

 

[paul_c]

Again, my bad: I should have said “opposing Catholicism” not “opposing Catholics.”

Now, as for giving him a friendly warning, I am not getting “personal”, but only helping him out. I always hate to see posters banned, esp. right when we’re in the middle of getting somewhere and giving them some things that make them go

He didn’t say anything ban worthy…

 

[PRmerger]

He didn’t say anything ban worthy…

I didn’t say he did.

Just giving him a friendly warning–he’s certainly toe-ing the line.

But you are correct in that he is certainly coming along quite nicely and that is why I don’t want to see him (or any non-Catholic) banned.