Is obedience necessary for your salvation?

[guanophore]

I agree with just about everything you said, but does God really make us obedient? Does He, that is, compel us to be obedient? Is it even obedience if we are made to be so?

This is a very good question. I would say, yes. First, on the point is obedience necessary…

Luke 6:46-49
47 " Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.”

I would say that Jesus expects people of faith to DO what he says. As far as Him making us able…I recommend chapter7 of Romans, which talks about the war between the flesh and the spirit. Humans are able to will to do what is right, but are not able to accomplish it except by God’s grace. But God has made us co - creators with HImself, " for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Phil 2:12-13

He places the will do obey, and works along with us to accomplish that will. I think what the average Catholic does not grasp is how to apply the grace, and the tendency is to try to accomplish right things on one’s own.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

He places the will do obey, and works along with us to accomplish that will. I think what the average Catholic does not grasp is how to apply the grace, and the tendency is to try to accomplish right things on one’s own.

Guanophore,

If I can ask, how exactly do we “apply the grace” as you said? I genuinely want to know this. And is it fair to say that God’s purpose in the sacraments is to give us grace by which He “places the will to obey” . . . ? This will to obey logically seems to follow the gift of grace, which if I understand the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist) are God’s manner of giving us a measure of grace . .

 

[guanophore]

I agree that Grace flows through the sacraments, and that too few Catholics avail themselves. I see a lot of people going for Eucharist, but the church is very thin during confessions! I also think that people do not completely apprehend the sacraments. I think married people do not understand what Catholic marriage is all about. If they did, we would not have this divorce rate!

I also think that the other practices of piety in the church are channels of grace, sacramentals and the instructions and examples given by the saints. For example, fasting during lent is not a sacrament, but can become a great channel of grace.

 

[guanophore]

When the question is asked to Catholics, “On what basis are you going to heaven”…this is what I get each time:

I am good, I keep the commandments, I do this and I do that…they are boasting of their own good.

You ask me and I will claim the crosswork of Christ as my only means to salvation. My boasting is of Christ.

Romans 10:3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

This is a good example of what I was talking about uneducated CAtholics. The church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. Most Catholics focus on the part where we are saved by faith working through love. They understand that they are created to do good works, and walk in them, but miss the point about the foundation.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

The interaction of faith and works and sacraments and charity and love is, at least for a lifelong Protestant, admittedly a bit confusing. My understanding grows each day, but I still admit I’m not entirely sure how Catholics view salvation. All of the listed possibilities seem to be supported at one time or another, and it is not entirely clear which one is the Church teaching:

Taking into consideration the obvious necessities for salvation from a Catholic perspective (e.g, baptism), salvation intermittently seems to mean, to various people:

(a) death without the blemish of mortal sin (obviously this indirectly indicates a life of obedience, frequent referral to at least the sacrament of reconciliation, or more likely both)

(b) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of some evidence of charity/love/obedience

(c) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of a life full of charity/love/obedience

I’m unsure what the Church teaches, whether it is (a), (b), (c), or some unmentioned possibility. Because this is not crystal clear to me after months of research into the various teachings of the Church, I imagine that it could be murky for cradle Catholics as well. And if it is murky, they may be trying their hardest to fulfill the works aspect in hopes that it will evidence their faith.

Thoughts?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The interaction of faith and works and sacraments and charity and love is, at least for a lifelong Protestant, admittedly a bit confusing. My understanding grows each day, but I still admit I’m not entirely sure how Catholics view salvation. All of the listed possibilities seem to be supported at one time or another, and it is not entirely clear which one is the Church teaching:

Taking into consideration the obvious necessities for salvation from a Catholic perspective (e.g, baptism), salvation intermittently seems to mean, to various people:

(a) death without the blemish of mortal sin (obviously this indirectly indicates a life of obedience, frequent referral to at least the sacrament of reconciliation, or more likely both)

(b) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of some evidence of charity/love/obedience

(c) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of a life full of charity/love/obedience

I’m unsure what the Church teaches, whether it is (a), (b), (c), or some unmentioned possibility. Because this is not crystal clear to me after months of research into the various teachings of the Church, I imagine that it could be murky for cradle Catholics as well. And if it is murky, they may be trying their hardest to fulfill the works aspect in hopes that it will evidence their faith.

Thoughts?

If you die after having exhibited heroic sanctity you may be canonised and declared to be definitely in Heaven.
However it is always understood that huge numbers of people not candidates for canonisation will also be saved. But their relatives do not have the comfort of knowing their fate.

The mortal sin idea was an attempt to formalise the state of a soul’s relationship to God before death. It led to many problems, the worst of which is that the literate masses, knowing themselves to be in a state of what the Church defined as mortal sin, reacted by rejecting the Church.

No one has ever been declared to be definitely in Hell, so mortal sin theology was never as firm as most people imagined. It is obviously possible to reject God by a single radical act, it also possible to slowly lose interest and drift away. That led to missing Mass being declared as a mortal sin, in equality to murder, which modern people, living in highly secular, mobile, busy society, simply didn’t believe. They might be wrong about that. Experience has shown that poor attenders usually eventually cease to be Christians in any meaningful sense.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The interaction of faith and works and sacraments and charity and love is, at least for a lifelong Protestant, admittedly a bit confusing. My understanding grows each day, but I still admit I’m not entirely sure how Catholics view salvation. All of the listed possibilities seem to be supported at one time or another, and it is not entirely clear which one is the Church teaching:

Taking into consideration the obvious necessities for salvation from a Catholic perspective (e.g, baptism), salvation intermittently seems to mean, to various people:

(a) death without the blemish of mortal sin (obviously this indirectly indicates a life of obedience, frequent referral to at least the sacrament of reconciliation, or more likely both)

(b) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of some evidence of charity/love/obedience

(c) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of a life full of charity/love/obedience

I’m unsure what the Church teaches, whether it is (a), (b), (c), or some unmentioned possibility. Because this is not crystal clear to me after months of research into the various teachings of the Church, I imagine that it could be murky for cradle Catholics as well. And if it is murky, they may be trying their hardest to fulfill the works aspect in hopes that it will evidence their faith.

Thoughts?

If you die after having exhibited heroic sanctity you may be canonised and declared to be definitely in Heaven.
However it is always understood that huge numbers of people not candidates for canonisation will also be saved. But their relatives do not have the comfort of knowing their fate.

The mortal sin idea was an attempt to formalise the state of a soul’s relationship to God before death. It led to many problems, the worst of which is that the literate masses, knowing themselves to be in a state of what the Church defined as mortal sin, reacted by rejecting the Church.

No one has ever been declared to be definitely in Hell, so mortal sin theology was never as firm as most people imagined. It is obviously possible to reject God by a single radical act, it also possible to slowly lose interest and drift away. That led to missing Mass being declared as a mortal sin, in equality to murder, which modern people, living in highly secular, mobile, busy society, simply didn’t believe. They might be wrong about that. Experience has shown that poor attenders usually eventually cease to be Christians in any meaningful sense.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The interaction of faith and works and sacraments and charity and love is, at least for a lifelong Protestant, admittedly a bit confusing. My understanding grows each day, but I still admit I’m not entirely sure how Catholics view salvation. All of the listed possibilities seem to be supported at one time or another, and it is not entirely clear which one is the Church teaching:

Taking into consideration the obvious necessities for salvation from a Catholic perspective (e.g, baptism), salvation intermittently seems to mean, to various people:

(a) death without the blemish of mortal sin (obviously this indirectly indicates a life of obedience, frequent referral to at least the sacrament of reconciliation, or more likely both)

(b) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of some evidence of charity/love/obedience

(c) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of a life full of charity/love/obedience

I’m unsure what the Church teaches, whether it is (a), (b), (c), or some unmentioned possibility. Because this is not crystal clear to me after months of research into the various teachings of the Church, I imagine that it could be murky for cradle Catholics as well. And if it is murky, they may be trying their hardest to fulfill the works aspect in hopes that it will evidence their faith.

Thoughts?

If you die after having exhibited heroic sanctity you may be canonised and declared to be definitely in Heaven.
However it is always understood that huge numbers of people not candidates for canonisation will also be saved. But their relatives do not have the comfort of knowing their fate.

The mortal sin idea was an attempt to formalise the state of a soul’s relationship to God before death. It led to many problems, the worst of which is that the literate masses, knowing themselves to be in a state of what the Church defined as mortal sin, reacted by rejecting the Church.

No one has ever been declared to be definitely in Hell, so mortal sin theology was never as firm as most people imagined. It is obviously possible to reject God by a single radical act, it also possible to slowly lose interest and drift away. That led to missing Mass being declared as a mortal sin, in equality to murder, which modern people, living in highly secular, mobile, busy society, simply didn’t believe. They might be wrong about that. Experience has shown that poor attenders usually eventually cease to be Christians in any meaningful sense.

 

[guanophore]

The interaction of faith and works and sacraments and charity and love is, at least for a lifelong Protestant, admittedly a bit confusing. My understanding grows each day, but I still admit I’m not entirely sure how Catholics view salvation. All of the listed possibilities seem to be supported at one time or another, and it is not entirely clear which one is the Church teaching:

Taking into consideration the obvious necessities for salvation from a Catholic perspective (e.g, baptism), salvation intermittently seems to mean, to various people:

(a) death without the blemish of mortal sin (obviously this indirectly indicates a life of obedience, frequent referral to at least the sacrament of reconciliation, or more likely both)

(b) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of some evidence of charity/love/obedience

(c) death without the blemish of mortal sin PLUS with the addition of a life full of charity/love/obedience

I’m unsure what the Church teaches, whether it is (a), (b), (c), or some unmentioned possibility. Because this is not crystal clear to me after months of research into the various teachings of the Church, I imagine that it could be murky for cradle Catholics as well. And if it is murky, they may be trying their hardest to fulfill the works aspect in hopes that it will evidence their faith.

Thoughts?

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Catholicism is very complicated, with many layers. I think that is why most baptized Catholics do their best, but don’t really understand many of the basics. Ironically, Catholic Answers on EWTN, and perhaps online as well, has helped more Catholics understand their own faith than it has helped protestants! In reference to your postulations above you nowhere state that one must have faith in Christ. Naturally one might assume that living the sacramental life is evidence of faith, but there seem tome to be a lot of nominal Catholics that really have no understanding of what being a Christian is all about. The works/obedience part is only external evidence of a true faith. There are many good people in the world, that do good works, that do not know Christ. But, if one truly does know Him, that knowledge will be reflected in one’s actions.Remember the thief on the cross next to Jesus? He did not live a pure life, was not obedient, and admitted that he was getting his just punishment. Nevertheless, Jesus tells him that he will be with Him “this day in paradise”. The thief demonstrated repentance, and a confession of faith with humility.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Are people here saying that dying in a state of mortal sin would mean that person will not go to heaven? I spoke to the Curate on this very point last week, and that is definitely wrong.

 

[guanophore]

Are people here saying that dying in a state of mortal sin would mean that person will not go to heaven? I spoke to the Curate on this very point last week, and that is definitely wrong.

One poster said she was told that was part of Catholic belief, but I have not read anything like that here. According to your curate, how much mortal sin is a person allowed, and still be able to pass through the pearly gates? What if the mortal sin is the unforgivable sin?

 

[jack_hawkins]

One poster said she was told that was part of Catholic belief, but I have not read anything like that here. According to your curate, how much mortal sin is a person allowed, and still be able to pass through the pearly gates? What if the mortal sin is the unforgivable sin?

I inferred from a previous which mentioned 3 options, all of which included mortal sin. We didn’t have a long discussion about mortal sin, I simply asked him if dying in a state of mortal sin meant you were going to hell and he said “definitely no” or words to that effect. What is the unforgiveable sin? I have always taken it to be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

I inferred from a previous which mentioned 3 options, all of which included mortal sin. We didn’t have a long discussion about mortal sin, I simply asked him if dying in a state of mortal sin meant you were going to hell and he said “definitely no” or words to that effect. What is the unforgiveable sin? I have always taken it to be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, that was the post that I was referring to also. Yes, Jesus said the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. There seems to be a lot of debate about what exactly that means. Whatever it is, it certainly seems mortal, and it certainly seems like it would interfere with one’s salvation.

 

[Nicene]

It depends on how you are looking at it. True faith in Christ manifests itself in works - for in Christ we are a new creation (2Cor 5:17) - and - ofcourse, faith without works is dead. Faith and the result of faith are inseparable.

As long as you are not looking at obedience as the means of salvation as if you were meriting salvation. We are saved on the basis of faith alone but on faith that is living faith manifesting itself in obedience and love.

Those who are indeed born again will bring forth this fruit of obedience as spelled out clearly throughout first John.

Lot is an example, however, of one who was not the greatest example for Christian living, although he was called righteous because he was justified by faith.

2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

So, obedience is not a means but is a fruit.

And the problem with this claim to “faith alone” is this:

By acknowledging you are justified by faith alone, and that you are not justified by faith and works, the works you are doing are your own. By not acknowledging that God is the justifier of those works, (making the imperfect, perfect) it is man justifying his own works, which is offensive to God:

Lk 16:15: But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

But God is sovereign, not only does he give us works to walk in, but he justifies those works:

Rom 2:13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Is it as catholics say that God justifies our works, or is it as protestants say that God does not justify by works, therefore the only option left is man justifying his own works, relying on his own merits?

In man justifying his own works he does not acknowledge God as the origin of those works nor his sovereignty.

Eph 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Phil 2:12: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
13: for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Why? Because those people are relying on their own merit with the euphamism “fruit”. They infringe upon the sovereignty of God and makes grace, no grace. The supposed fruit that doesn’t acknowledge God as the source and justification relies on false “fruit” through the law according to his own justification of works: It is not enough to have faith but to be a doer of the law. Even atheist’s do good. So what is the difference between catholics and protestants? Catholics acknowledge that all good things that we do are a grace from God, and that he is the one who will make them perfect and justify them.

Cont…

 

[Nicene]

For those who claim their own works as “fruits” of their own justification in faith as pointed out earlier in Luke, Jesus says this is an abomination before God. By saying the works are your fruit then it is not by grace but by the works themselves:

Rom:11:6: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Nor will they be justified by God but will be seen as an abomination.

So while protestants rely on Gods acquittal through faith alone, and their own justification of works. Catholics rely on the acquittal of God through faith and but also that he will also justify and make perfect the works he gave us and acknowledge him as the source of those works.

On those works you will be judged:

1 Pet 1:17: And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.

Jn 5:29: and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Mt 16:27: For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

2 Cor 5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Rom 2:6: For he will render to every man according to his works:
7: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Faith alone not only does not accept Gods Justifcation but outright rejects it, which is evil:

Rom 2:8: but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
9: There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Revelation is very poingant with regards to those who rely on their own merits and righteousness for gain instead of relying and acknowleding God as their origin. (The same mistake scripture continually corrects)

Rev 3:1: "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead.
2: Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God.

Rev 2:4: But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
5: Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

If you acknowledge that God justifies by works (Rom 2:13) and faith then it is only pride which keeps you proclaiming faith alone when it is proven to be false. Which is another sin.

Faith alone instinctively relies on Pelagianism when you dig deep enough through the euphamism “Fruits” because it refuses to acknowledgfe Gods grace (making it no grace) and justification of works. All that is left is mans own merit and self justification of those works.

Do you acknowledge that God will be the justifier of works and that you will be judged by them?

If you say no, then you rely on your own works (fruit) and justification.

If you say you can do nothing to please God and that there is no justification of works by God (contrary to scripture) then you call Jesus a liar and say this is impossible for God:

Mk 10:26: And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?”
27: Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Truthstalker]

I can accept synergism only under some conditions:

1. Man is not autonomous. All things are created by God and sustained by Him every instant. He powers the universe actively.
2. Man on his own can not and will not choose good.
3. Any choice of good that man makes is an act of grace.
4. God grants man free will as an act of grace, but that grace has to be there first.
5. For man to choose to have free will, there had to have been grace there before he made the choice, because otherwise he couldn’t make the choice.
6. Any work of obedience that man does is not His but God’s, not just ultimately but immediately, and God grants merit not because of the work of man but as an act of grace.

Furthermore, Christ’s obedience was necessary for my salvation. My righteousness is as filthy rags. Christ fulfilled the Law so that I don’t have to. From Romans 6:

For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.
13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

 

[DCD]

You hit it on the head…plus when speaking with a large percentage of Catholics, they calim salvation by their ggood deeds that they do rather than on the basis of the crosswork of Christ.

What is a large % of Catholics out of 1.2 billion?

Peace,
David

 

[DCD]

I think that accusation relates to having to accept sacraments? Pentecostals believe you should be baptised, but communion is generally considered a remembrance and a symbol. They do anoint the sick but it’s not a sacrament as such.

Just an observation about “accepting”. Baptism is commanded it is not left up to the believer.

Peace,
David

 

[jack_hawkins]

Just an observation about “accepting”. Baptism is commanded it is not left up to the believer.

Peace,
David

Well if someone holds my head down in the font at Easter Vigil I will agree that I didn’t accept baptism

 

[ALLFORHIM]

So when Protestants speak of “salvation by works” they are simply using the wrong words?

Oh, BTW, I’ve never heard a single Catholic who claimed they are saved by their good deeds, and yet you claim that “a large percentage” of Catholics make exactly that claim. How do you explain such a vast discrepancy?

Hi,
I live in an area with many catholics and of the ones I have met believe the same thing.

I would have to agree with linkowski. They will say to me well we **have to do **this or **have to do **that to earn points toward heaven.

Somewhere they have been taught wrong I guess.

Do you believe the sacrements save you? I have had some catholics friends tell me that. Or if I dont go to church every Sunday Im going to hell–
Those are all things that we do(works)