Salvation

[Norway]

If by faith in Jesus you mean “an imitation of Christ” then it is necessary.

But imagine another extreme example, where a young child was abused horribly by their father. Every time the father abused the child he said “this is how Jesus wants it.” the child would find it extremely difficult to “accept Jesus” under the name of “Jesus” because of the terrible associations. However, if the child imitates Jesus, without even knowing that is who they are imitating, then they are a “follower of Christ” in the truest sense.

 

[kaycee]

I have taken a similar line of thought by asking “works don’t save” people directly: Can you (not the thief on the cross, not a deathbed convert, but you) be saved without good works?

The way they squirm around that simple question is something to behold!

Yes, offcourse, that is the only way one is saved. By unmerited favor. Works are post salvation. The vast majority of biblical verses relating to salvation speak of it as a past event.

If salvation is based on works that must be performed, then it is not based on unmerited favor, it has become wages, merit, payment.

Do you see the works as increasing your infused righteousness?

 

[Fidelis]

The vast majority of biblical verses relating to salvation speak of it as a past event.

Even if that was true, the quantity of verses that speak of salvation as a past event do does not negate the fact that there are numerous verses that speak of salvation as an ongoing and future event as well.

Just like some Protestants accuse Catholics of believing they have to “add up” good works (which, for the millioneth time, the Church has never taught), some Protestants seem to have the idea that if they can produce more numbers of where a Scripture passage is saying something about a certain matter, that trumps what the rest of the Bible has to say on the matter.

When Catholics read the Bible, they read it as a related and a unified whole without relying on pet verses. That’s why the Catholic Church is the only Full Gospel Church.

 

[kaycee]

Hi, Kaycee–

Try it this way:

GRACE first, then our response to it–a movement of the intellect and will–we call it “faith”.

But wait–when we move our intellect and will, isn’t that a work? Something we do?

Thus faith is merely the first required “work” that is a response to grace. Continued works that respond to grace would result in obedience.

Does that sound plausible to you?

No, Paul clearly makes the distinction.

Ro 4:16 - Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Ro 9:30 - What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

Ro 9:32 - Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, **it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. **

Php 3:9 - and be found in him, not having a rightousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

 

[kaycee]

Even if that was true, the quantity of verses that speak of salvation as a past event do does not negate the fact that there are numerous verses that speak of salvation as an ongoing and future event as well.

Just like some Protestants accuse Catholics of believing they have to “add up” good works (which, for the millioneth time, the Church has never taught), some Protestants seem to have the idea that if they can produce more numbers of where a Scripture passage is saying something about a certain matter, that trumps what the rest of the Bible has to say on the matter.

When Catholics read the Bible, they read it as a related and a unified whole without relying on pet verses. That’s why the Catholic Church is the only Full Gospel Church.

Certainly sanctification is a part of salvation. We believe that Justification is seperate from sanctification in reference to requirements for entrance into heaven.

 

[VociMike]

If salvation is based on works that must be performed, then it is not based on unmerited favor, it has become wages, merit, payment.

If salvation is based on faith, then it is not based on unmerited favor, it has become wages, merit, payment.

True or false?

 

[kaycee]

If by faith in Jesus you mean “an imitation of Christ” then it is necessary.

But imagine another extreme example, where a young child was abused horribly by their father. Every time the father abused the child he said “this is how Jesus wants it.” the child would find it extremely difficult to “accept Jesus” under the name of “Jesus” because of the terrible associations. However, if the child imitates Jesus, without even knowing that is who they are imitating, then they are a “follower of Christ” in the truest sense.

I understand where your going with that. But that would not be the official doctrine of the RCC. It would be more of a working your way to heaven, being a good person, being Christ Like, Good works outweighing your bad way to heaven. I dont believe that is what the Bible teaches at all.

 

[DJim]

kaycee wrote:

No, Paul clearly makes the distinction.

Actually, Paul is making some distinctions that you in fact are not making…

Ro 9:32 - Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

The same Paul uses the same word “ergon” (works) earlier in Romans when he speaks of God “who will render to every man according to his works.” (Rom 2:6)

HOWEVER, by Romans 9:32, Paul is speaking of “ergon nomos”–the word “nomos” somehow did not make it in your quote of the passage above–the full phrase being works of the Law, the Torah of Moses. BIG difference.

Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, **it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. **

Catholics agree–for in verse 10 we’re told we’re created for good works…

Php 3:9 - and be found in him, not having a rightousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith

My post simply suggested that faith is the first good work we do, and Paul does not disagree.

Even Eph 2:8-10 speaks of “works” and “good works”–and there’s plenty of evidence that the “ergon” in this case implies “ergon nomos” as is explicitly stated in Romans…

DJim

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

My uncle gave me a job once. I could not have got it on my own. I did not earn it. He did not need me to do the work, any number of others would have jumped at the chance. It was a free and generous gift.

However, it was a job. I had to work for the wages. I had to work to keep the job. The wages were also a result of his gift; I would never have had them, but for the gift. But I also worked for them.

I earned the wages, even though I never “merited” them, because it was his gift that got me the job. If his gift had been withdrawn, which he also had the power to do, I would have lost my opportunity for the wages. So it was always his generosity that was the basis of my wages.

Oh, by the way, I had to do what I was told to do too. Just doing what I decided to do would not suffice, except when I decided to do what I was directed to do. So, obedience was also key.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[kaycee]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

My uncle gave me a job once. I could not have got it on my own. I did not earn it. He did not need me to do the work, any number of others would have jumped at the chance. It was a free and generous gift.

However, it was a job. I had to work for the wages. I had to work to keep the job. The wages were also a result of his gift; I would never have had them, but for the gift. But I also worked for them.

I earned the wages, even though I never “merited” them, because it was his gift that got me the job. If his gift had been withdrawn, which he also had the power to do, I would have lost my opportunity for the wages. So it was always his generosity that was the basis of my wages.

Oh, by the way, I had to do what I was told to do too. Just doing what I decided to do would not suffice, except when I decided to do what I was directed to do. So, obedience was also key.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

What did you DO to BECOME his uncle.

Was maintaining adequate performance a condition of remaining a nephew?

 

[Philthy]

Yes, offcourse, that is the only way one is saved… By unmerited favor.

That’s a little ambiguous kc. It’s not a complete description of salvation, is it? For you will add “by faith alone” to "the only way one is saved is by “unmerited favor”(ie grace). If the “only way” one is saved is by Grace, then why do we need to add “through faith alone” to it?
kc:

Works are post salvation.

Again, very loose wording. Did the Jews not do “works”? Were those Jews “post salvation”? Of course not. In addition, you are implicitly assuming that salvation is an instantaneous, complete and permanent event by assuming that since works are “post salvation” that they therefore cannot be part of salvation. I consider that an invalid assumption.
kc:

The vast majority of biblical verses relating to salvation speak of it as a past event.

Not good enough, and completely arbitrary. If such a criteria were employed with the term “faith alone” you would immediately join the other side of this debate because the ONLY time that term is used it is to declare that a man in NOT justified by faith alone. But you havent joined the other side of the debate and we cant take your claim of truth based on the preponderance of verses as anything other than erroneous.
kc:

If salvation is based on works that must be performed, then it is not based on unmerited favor, it has become wages, merit, payment.

Unless, of course, the ability to do those works is nothing other than by the grace which God provides us. Then they would no longer be “my” works, but God’s works which I perform by faith, and your entire line of reasoning would be invalid. “For we are God’s handiwork created in Christ Jesus for the good works that He has prepared in advance that we should walk in them.” Eph 2:10
kc:

Do you see the works as increasing your infused righteousness?

No, I see the term infused righteousness as an extrabiblical tradition which is required to explain a preexisting extrabiblical tradition. I’m very comfortable with the concept that good works are inseparable from saving faith. Like I said before, why is it that you are so comfortable saying that “those who are saved will certainly do good works, but you cannot bring yourself to say that those who do not do good works are certainly not saved?”

 

[kaycee]

kaycee wrote:

Actually, Paul is making some distinctions that you in fact are not making…

The same Paul uses the same word “ergon” (works) earlier in Romans when he speaks of God “who will render to every man according to his works.” (Rom 2:6)

HOWEVER, by Romans 9:32, Paul is speaking of “ergon nomos”–the word “nomos” somehow did not make it in your quote of the passage above–the full phrase being works of the Law, the Torah of Moses. BIG difference.

Catholics agree–for in verse 10 we’re told we’re created for good works…

My post simply suggested that faith is the first good work we do, and Paul does not disagree.

DJim

"You are correct that the Bible teaches that faith is not a work, but we make it into a work as soon as we view it as something we can autonomously come up with, apart from any work of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe we can, from our own resources, change our naturally unregenerate hardened hearts in some way that is independent of God are promoting rank Pelagianism. Ask yourself, in light of Scripture, can you believe the gospel apart from ANY work of the Holy Spirit? (see 1 Thes 1:4,5). God commands us to come to Him but unregenerate man is naturally faithless. The reason for this is that he is by nature unspiritual (i.e. w/o the Holy Spirit). We cannot grasp spiritual truth without the Holy Spirit. To claim we might do so would be a contradiction, for spirituality is a condition of spiritual understanding. In 1 Cor 2:12 Paul affrims this by writing, “We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.” ( i.e. the gospel). That is why through the prophet Jeremiah, God makes the promise, “I will heal your faithlessness” (Jer 3:22). With this in mind do you think we can heal our own faithlessness?

reformationtheology.com/2006/03/is_faith_a_work.php

 

[DJim]

Kaycee and all:

Here’s a simple question that should be easily answered:

When I choose to respond with faith to the FREE gift of God’s grace, does my response have value in God’s eyes?

Yes or no, and why?

DJim

 

[Fidelis]

Certainly sanctification is a part of salvation. We believe that Justification is seperate from sanctification in reference to requirements for entrance into heaven.

The verses that I mentioned as speaking of salvation as an ongoing and future event (in addition to being a present event) refer explicitly to salvation, not to sanctification. That’s a whole 'nother thing.

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee and all:

Here’s a simple question that should be easily answered:

When I choose to respond with faith to the FREE gift of God’s grace, does my response have value in God’s eyes?

Yes or no, and why?

DJim

God has given you the ability to say yes to Faith. No value from your side of the equation.

 

[Norway]

Would anyone like to restate the central question being debated. I’m finding it difficult to glean from all the posts. Just in like 2 sentences.

 

[DJim]

God has given you the ability to say yes to Faith. No value from your side of the equation.

So are you saying that there is value in God’s eyes in saying “yes” to Faith?

I think you are, but want to make sure…

DJim

 

[kaycee]

So are you saying that there is value in God’s eyes in saying “yes” to Faith?

I think you are, but want to make sure…

DJim

Faith is a gift from God. The value is from God. I guess I am not sure what your asking.

God gives us the ability to believe. I guess there is “value” but I don’t believe it is autonamous to the believer because without the gift the one cannot believe.

 

[Fidelis]

"Norway:

Would anyone like to restate the central question being debated. I’m finding it difficult to glean from all the posts. Just in like 2 sentences.

From Post #1:

If, as Catholics claim, salvation is achieved by faith in Jesus Christ and good works, and concurrently believe there is only “one” heaven (as opposed to Moronic, excuse me, Mormon belief) how is it any way relevant which particular Christian sect one belongs to?

Or, if you disagree with the above, do you contend that a Protestant who does indeed have a faith and practices good works is condemned to hell?

 

[DJim]

Faith is a gift from God. The value is from God. I guess I am not sure what your asking.

God gives us the ability to believe. I guess there is “value” but I don’t believe it is autonamous to the believer because without the gift the one cannot believe.

You are, of course, exactly right–Catholics, too, believe that the response to grace is a complete gift of God and that there’s no way a person can take credit for that–same with works under the influence of grace–since everything comes from God, all glory to God, so to speak.

“Without the gift, one cannot believe” is absolutely right; but isn’t it also true that, without the belief, there is no “value”?

Belief “magnifies” the Lord, so to speak, giving rise to an act with “value” in God’s eyes.

UNbelief does not “magnify” the Lord–thus no act with “value” in God’s eyes.

Furthermore, other responses to grace in a person’s life will also have “value” in God’s eyes in exactly the same way.

My point in all this is that this “value” is what the Catholic Church calls “merit”. The glory is all God’s because anything done under the influence of grace is rightly His. But, it is the “doing” of things under the influence of grace that has value in God’s eyes.

not doing = no value
doing = value

The original post questioned the concept of faith/works relative to salvation, and whether a faithful Protestant practicing good works was hellbound.

I am hoping to illustrate that everything done under the influence of grace has value in God’s eyes–and that the free gift of salvation is available to all who respond to that grace and remain “grace-responsive” so to speak.

Doing so will ideally and most likely bring one closer to real truth (e.g. the Catholic faith), but this does NOT mean that non-Catholics are hellbound, and it still means that it “matters” which “denomination” one adheres to. To respond to grace will bring one closer and closer to the Catholic faith…and will bring more and more “value” into being at the same time…

Those were my two points: the value we’re talking about is Catholic “merit”, and it brings the concept of faith/works into better focus, relative to the OP…

DJim