Salvation vs. Fellowship

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndreMcc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AndreMcc

Guest
I have been dialoging with some Protestant co-workers on the Catholic view of faith and works. They are telling me that works are not necessary for salvation. They are of the once saved always save opinion. They say that works help with fellowship with the Lord and other believers. They also say that works can gain you greater rewards in heaven. I would like to know where exactly they get the idea that the two are separate. :cool:
 
It’s simply the logical conclusion to “once saved always saved”, which of course ties people into intellectual knots. The idea is that if the christian brings sin into his or her life, the person will lose their fellowship with the Lord, and He will not answer their prayers. In fundamentalist circles they called it “putting you on a shelf”. You’re still ‘saved’, but until you remove sin out of your life, God will not ‘fellowship’ with you.
 
Thank You for the reply, Another question is when they say that works are as filthy rags to the Lord. How can they merit rewards in Heaven?
 
well, like justaservant said, it their conclusion that its just “once saved. always saved.” it’s like, since jesus has them, he doesn’t want anytjing else, and whateverelse we do is just, “dirty rags.” something like that. I’m really tired at the moment so i mayu have just sais something really dumb.
 
They get this idea from many mis-interpreted verses in the bible. Most of those verses are from Paul who is saying that works of the “old law” are not necessary, such as in Romans chapter 10.

They tend to take things out of context. They say that they are saved by “faith alone”. The ONLY place in the Bible that the words faith and alone are together is in James2:24 where is says that “a person is justified by works and not faith alone”.

As Catholics, we believe that both faith and works are needed, and that it is God’s grace that saves us.

I would ask you friend these two questions:
  1. How do you explain the devil? He has faith. He believe God is who he is. There is no question about that. He has faith. I know this point is made in the Bible, but I’m not ecatly sure of the verse. I’ll find it. I believe that it is in 1 Peter.
  2. If salvation is the ultimate goal, and (according to you, faith is all that is needed for salvation) the why in 1st Corinthian chapter 13 does the bible say “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.”??? Wouldn’t it say faith is the greatest of these, if it is what saves us?
 
The “once saved always saved” concept would be like covering up a wound and not cleaning it out first.

Imagine that you were stabbed with a rusted pick ax. When you get to the hospital, they are going to spend a great deal of time cleaning the wound, before stitches or anything else. That would be like the Catholic view.

The Protestant view and concept of being a snow covered dunghill, says you just cover it up.

I think that God would want to clean up our hearts, just as we would clean the wound. Our hearts have to be pure to get into heaven. After all, nothing unclean can get into heaven.
 
I guess what I am trying to find out is when and by whom did the OSAS thought process come about. If one is saved by faith alone at one moment in time, then fellowship is just an added thing to do to set an example for fellow Chirstians and it may get one reward in Heaven. Cherry picking lines of of scripture out of context to defend their views is evident. I am just wondering if there is an epicenter where this line of thinking started.
 
AndreMcc said:
Thank You for the reply, Another question is when they say that works are as filthy rags to the Lord. How can they merit rewards in Heaven?
Click to expand...
It dates back to the writings of evangleist Jonathan Edwards. He talked about Rewards in Heaven. He said that our reward will be the ability or capacity to appreciate and enjoy the glory of God, and there will be degrees. IOW, LEVELS of Heaven.
 
AndreMcc said:
I guess what I am trying to find out is when and by whom did the OSAS thought process come about. If one is saved by faith alone at one moment in time, then fellowship is just an added thing to do to set an example for fellow Chirstians and it may get one reward in Heaven. Cherry picking lines of of scripture out of context to defend their views is evident. I am just wondering if there is an epicenter where this line of thinking started.
Click to expand...
It started from Calvinism. Although Calvinists disown it. A person can show no fruit in his or her Christian life because of the ‘event’ of salvation when they got their lifeboat out of Hell and their ticket to Heaven. This ‘event’ is sealed and the Christian is “Once saved always saved”. What happens? I lose my fear of God. Why must I live a holy life? Why get upset over sin? The ‘event’ made me right. It creates a spiritual laziness. A presumption.
It creates a dilemma that must be explained. So, in order to explain a “Christian” who falls into sin or has no spiritual fruit, they come up with another phrase: “never saved in the first place”. The ‘event’ really didn’t happen and must be replaced with a genuine ‘event’.
It is the ‘event’ that is at the heart of it all.
 
There’s a good deal of oversimplification going on in this discussion.

The faith-alone idea comes from many passages like John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Once-saved-always-saved doesn’t make a lot of sense divorced from the entire complex of reform theology, which hinges on the idea of predestination. Romans has the strongest passages on this, as I’m sure the participants of this discussion know, and the reform guys decided they couldn’t throw out that 800-lb baby with the bathwater (to mix metaphors), just because the Bible also discusses the importance of faith and works.

The question is, What is the root cause of salvation? Yes, faith and works are important, but as signs of salvation or as causes? Calvin et al. decided that they are signs and not causes. The crux of the reason they go this way is that there are such problems with free will, which both the faith folks and the works wonks assume (and which y’all in the Catholic Church are sold on, as are most Protestant denominations).

In a nutshell, free will requires God to relinquish his sovereignty, passing measures of it to us buzzing little humans. Yes, yes… made in His image, etc. … I can argue for free will, too. But the reform radicals couldn’t stand the idea of us being a kind of minor deities and decided we must have been selected for salvation – or not selected. From this flows the idea of once-saved-always-saved. If God chose you, how can you unchoose you? One expects faith and works from someone chosen by God for salvation, but there’s no earnin’ nothin’ in this framework.

I know it’s hard to swallow, or even understand. My Presbyterian pastors (supposedly reform-based) haven’t bought it. But some of the greatest energy in the Protestant world right now is pure, old-time, hard-core Calvinist reform theology. Lots of young people, energetic gatherings, avid study.

Someone mentioned Jonathan Edwards. You can also read C. H. Spurgeon; the old rascal himself, John Calvin; and many modern reform writers like R. C. Sproul.
 
gepnav said:
There’s a good deal of oversimplification going on in this discussion.

The faith-alone idea comes from many passages like John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Once-saved-always-saved doesn’t make a lot of sense divorced from the entire complex of reform theology, which hinges on the idea of predestination. Romans has the strongest passages on this, as I’m sure the participants of this discussion know, and the reform guys decided they couldn’t throw out that 800-lb baby with the bathwater (to mix metaphors), just because the Bible also discusses the importance of faith and works.

The question is, What is the root cause of salvation? Yes, faith and works are important, but as signs of salvation or as causes? Calvin et al. decided that they are signs and not causes. The crux of the reason they go this way is that there are such problems with free will, which both the faith folks and the works wonks assume (and which y’all in the Catholic Church are sold on, as are most Protestant denominations).

In a nutshell, free will requires God to relinquish his sovereignty, passing measures of it to us buzzing little humans. Yes, yes… made in His image, etc. … I can argue for free will, too. But the reform radicals couldn’t stand the idea of us being a kind of minor deities and decided we must have been selected for salvation – or not selected. From this flows the idea of once-saved-always-saved. If God chose you, how can you unchoose you? One expects faith and works from someone chosen by God for salvation, but there’s no earnin’ nothin’ in this framework.

I know it’s hard to swallow, or even understand. My Presbyterian pastors (supposedly reform-based) haven’t bought it. But some of the greatest energy in the Protestant world right now is pure, old-time, hard-core Calvinist reform theology. Lots of young people, energetic gatherings, avid study.

Someone mentioned Jonathan Edwards. You can also read C. H. Spurgeon; the old rascal himself, John Calvin; and many modern reform writers like R. C. Sproul.
Click to expand...
Most of the fundamentalists who believe in OSAS do not describe themselves as Calvinists. They try to take a ‘middle road’.
But getting back to the OP, the problem with OSAS is that it belittles obedience and works. Works are simply to “help with fellowship with the Lord and other believers”, but otherwise unnecessary. It creates a spiritual laziness. A presumption.
 
AndreMcc said:
Thank You for the reply, Another question is when they say that works are as filthy rags to the Lord. How can they merit rewards in Heaven?
Click to expand...
Evangelicals take Pauls words “filthy rags” and twist them. Any attempt to be good is seen as a denial of God’s free gift of salvation. Which is why so many are adverse to the very term “good works”. They believe Catholics have a works based salvation. But the flip side of this coin has taught that any works at all is sinful. To resist temptation, to give to charitable causes, to go to church, are so completely optional that to be told to do any of these things is viewed as a sin worse than denying God. In deed for some, to do any good works at all is to deny God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top