Someone can lose their salvation?

[sandusky]

paul c:

I think Catholics can stand behind most of what you have here.

The one thing I would say that Catholics would add to this is that Man does have free will and that God respects this.

The one thing I would add is that Reformed theology recognizes that God made man with a will in which man freely chooses to act according to his desires, and God respects it, except when he doesn’t.
paul c:

The Catholic Church believes that God does have a plan and that that plan can not be thwarted by man, since God is omnipotent. The Catholic Church also teaches that man has free will and that God will respect our wishes to be saved or not saved.

This is posited by Reformed theology as well.
paul c:

The great mystery within the church is how God simultaneously manages to have man’s free will act in perfect accordance with God’s plan.

Taking a phrase by Shedd, and stating it positively, the reason for that is because it’s within God’s absolute power to make the free-will choice of a man/men an absolute certainty/certainties.

There are advantages to being The Sovereign Creator who is “other than” is creation.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Thank you, that is what I was seeking. I knew there must be a creative way to dispense with any scriptures that seem to indicate the monergistic view was not correct!

As a Catholic you should know that, what with all the, (Edited) doctrines to which you’ve submitted yourself (Edited).

guanophore:

Ok, so you are saying this passage:

Luke 7:30
30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

is an “exception” to the rule?

Can you please explain how it is an exception, and how it is that the word used here indicates will that cannot be thwarted, yet it is clear that the pharisees do thwart it?

It’s not an exception to the rule, but an exception to the use of a word.

God has a revealed will, which men disobey, and a secret will which men cannot disobey.

If the Pharisees thwarted God’s will, then it’s His permissive will that was thwarted, as His secret will cannot be thwarted.

This is not difficult to understand.

Why are you so confused by it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sandusky-

I have a few more thoughts I would like to share in response to your comment.

Time and again, Catholic members of this forum have asked you to answer certain questions or to explain your position on some matter, and you’re response has been, “I’ve posted what I believe many times before - just research what I’ve said” or “I already gave you my answer.” No offense, but it’s not easy keeping track of what every non-Catholic in this forum believes on each a every point of doctrine. You guys are not exactly known for your doctrinal unity, and you’ll have to forgive us if we ask for a refresher from time to time.

However, you had the audacity to belittle my posting as nothing more than “another of [my] ‘cannned responses’”.

Unlike you, I’m prepared to answer any question at length as often as is necessary for any and all who ask. If I don’t know something, I’m willing to do some research in order to learn, and I try very hard to provide as much detail in my answers as possible. Whenever possible, I document my sources with links to articles, the names of books and authors, and, of course, as much scripture as possible. Some of what I post is original material and some is borrowed from articles I’ve read and talks I have heard. If I only took material from a single source, this would be plagiarism; in fact, I steal from lots of sources, and this is called “research”.

My goal is to provide as much factual information as time and space permit to those who do not know, understand or agree with the Catholic faith so that they can find their way home, God willing. If that isn’t possible, I hope that fair-minded visitors from other faith traditions will learn a little something about what their Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ believe. In some cases, my only hope is that the rabid anti-Catholic who waltzes in here thinking that he will “show those papists a thing or two about the Bible” will simply realize that he doesn’t know as much as he thought he did and shut up. Or that we know a lot more than he thought we did. Bearing false witness about what Catholics teach and believe is not pleasing to God.

Now, to your charge: if I post something more than once, it is only because you and others keep asking the same questions or making the same false allegations and assertions. You have my word that I will continue trying to find new and better ways of saying what you need to hear, but there are a lot of posters in a lot of threads to get to, and I’m doing my best to answer as many as I can. MOST genuine seekers, Catholic and otherwise, are grateful just to be pointed in the right direction.

Your reasons for being here, on the other hand, are less clear. You’ve been posting in these forums for almost four years now. You do not appear to be genuinely interested in the Catholic faith personally nor does it seem that you have any real desire to convince us that your positions have any merit because you make so little effort to prove them. I don’t doubt your sincerity about what you believe; I just question your motives for participating in these discussions.

So, what gives Sandusky? Are you interested in becoming Catholic, are you interested in winning us over with thoughtful presentations of your theology, or are you just trolling?

No response, Sandusky?

 

[Randy_Carson]

God has a revealed will, which men disobey, and a secret will which men cannot disobey.

If the Pharisees thwarted God’s will, then it’s His permissive will that was thwarted, as His secret will cannot be thwarted.

This is not difficult to understand.

Why are you so confused by it?

Sandusky-

I’m confused by this because this is the first I’ve heard of this “secret will” of God…where is this found in the Bible?

 

[sandusky]

No response, Sandusky?

No response. You’ve had your say.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky-

I’m confused by this because this is the first I’ve heard of this “secret will” of God…where is this found in the Bible?

There’s a reference in the post.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

There are many wrongs that do not please God. Yes, He does what He pleases, and mankind, as well as the angels (devils now) do things that displease him. There are severe consequences for engaging in behavior that is displeasing to God:

I never said anything about wrongs that don’t please God, but of God doing as He pleases.

Why is it you seldom deal with anything that’s posted, by anyone, but must instead go into something completely unrelated?

guanophore:

Really? Which people are those?

Israel. Have you read the Scriptures?

guanophore:

Do you think that God might have allowed something different had his people obeyed Him as they ought?

Was their slavery pre-law, or post-law???

guanophore:

This is a logical fallacy.

No. The problem you have with what I’ve said is that you’re selective in what you believe with respect to what the Scriptures say.

Again, you’re not dealing with what I’ve stated, but going into something unrelated to what I’ve said.

guanophore:

Well, we have a different perception of God, and His way of interacting with humans.

No argument there.

guanophore:

We also have a difference of understanding about mankind, and the nature of free will.

Yup! :yup:

guanophore:

I think you are right. I can’t help but believe that it is possible for mankind to reject God’s purpose for himself. I am genuinely curious, however, how the Reformed tradition dispatches this passage.

Luke 7:30
30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

How many times must I answer this question for you???

Where were you the last time that I answered that for you today???

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

Who then interprets infalliably … Paul does not interpret God’s word … he writes it. Authors write and the readers obligation is to understand the writer’s intent … has it not always been that way?

I think by this admission you have discounted all of us as interpreters … though I do not think this is true … some interpretations take us closer to the truth and some farther away.

If you have found an infalliable interpretation of Paul’s writing concerning salvation … tell us … where have you found this?

A claim that the HS is the interpreter, while true, is a claim you cannot prove to me nor I to you. I have no evidence that would convince you of how or when this occured to myself so this leaves us with the question of where can people go to even begin learning the truth when fallability is all around us?

All men are fallible, and, IMO, the one’s claiming not to be are by far the most fallible, and they should be trusted the least.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No response. You’ve had your say.

Fine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There’s a reference in the post.

Luke 7:30 doesn’t seem to contain the phrase “secret will”.

Again, could you explain this “secret will” concept?

 

[The_Smiter]

Luke 7:30 doesn’t seem to contain the phrase “secret will”.

Again, could you explain this “secret will” concept?

Sandusky,

I am also interested in this “secret will” concept.

I am certqainly not saying that it does not exist. But if it is simething that you are inferring from Sacred Scripture, and it is not explicitly stated, then isn’t that what you accuse the Catholic Church of doing to scripture?

(Note: I am not trying to be antagonistic. I am genuinely interested in understanding where you are coming from with this and although I do not agree with much of what you state, I do respect opposition when it is consistent and follows its own interior logic.).

Thanks!

 

[paul_c]

The one thing I would add is that Reformed theology recognizes that God made man with a will in which man freely chooses to act according to his desires, and God respects it, except when he doesn’t.

This is posited by Reformed theology as well.

Taking a phrase by Shedd, and stating it positively, the reason for that is because it’s within God’s absolute power to make the free-will choice of a man/men an absolute certainty/certainties.

There are advantages to being The Sovereign Creator who is “other than” is creation.

Sandusky,
I don’t understand how Reformed theology recognizes man’s free will and at the same time says that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation. If a man demonstrated that he didn’t want to be saved by committing sin, doesn’t it follow that God would allow him to condemn himself?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Randy,

What an excellent idea! Thanks for sharing!

Of course.

Since non-Catholics keep wandering into these forums asking the same old questions, I simply keep a database of the same old answers to save on typing time. I have hundreds of Catholic Answers available at a moment’s notice.

This is not a problem since the truth never changes.

God bless

 

[firstmode]

This is from the Assemblies of God:

Security of the Believer (Backsliding)

This document reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church’s Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery.
What is the Assemblies of God position on the security of the believer’s salvation?

The Assemblies of God has taken a strong stand against the teaching that God’s sovereign will completely overrides man’s free will to accept and serve Him. In view of this we believe it is possible for a person once saved to turn from God and be lost again. However, we do not go to the other extreme of teaching that mankind’s choice of receiving or rejecting Christ makes a person totally responsible for his own salvation apart from Christ’s atonement. Article VIII of the Assemblies of God Bylaws opposes unconditional security with the following statement:

In view of the biblical teaching that the security of the believer depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6); in view of the Bible’s call to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 12:14); in view of the clear teaching that a man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19); and in view of the fact that one who believes for a while can fall away (Luke 8:13); The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.

The Christian religious world divides basically into two schools of thought concerning the spiritual destiny of people. One is Calvinism, named after John Calvin (early 16th century); the other is Arminianism, traced back to James Arminius (late 16th century). The theological debate is thus centuries old.

Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God’s unconditional election (or predestination) of those who will be saved, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God’s saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation.

Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God’s salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian. (5) One’s salvation can be lost through willful disobedience. Rather than the unconditional predestination of Calvinism, Arminianism teaches conditional predestination. We are predestined to eternal life if we accept God’s provision of salvation.

The Assemblies of God leans toward Arminianism, though it accepts scriptural truth found in both positions. We agree with the Calvinist emphasis on God’s sovereignty or supreme power and authority. But we also firmly believe the Arminian emphasis on mankind’s free will and responsibility for his actions and choices. We believe the Bible teaches both truths.

“Eternal security,” according to Calvinists, means “once saved, always saved.” The key passage for this position is John 10:28,29— “No one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.” There is great assurance in this passage and in Romans 8:35,39—“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . . Neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The Assemblies of God also stands on these wonderful truths knowing we need not fear that something external will overpower us and take away our salvation. Only our willful choices can do that.

 

[firstmode]

But because we are creatures with free wills, we must be vigilantly on guard because the enemy of our soul, the devil, “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith” (1 Peter 5:8,9). In our Fellowship we believe carelessness can lead to apathy, apathy to neglect, and neglect to a conscious decision to sin. We often refer to this spiritual decline as backsliding. We believe one who backslides is in danger of losing his salvation if the individual persists in rejecting the Spirit’s call to repentance and restoration.

Luke 8:13 makes clear the fact that believers can lose their salvation. It says some “believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.” Revelation 22:19 says “If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life, and in the holy city.”

Certainly there are true Christians who believe and teach Calvinism; there are also true Christians who believe and teach that men and women have free will. Unfortunately, both sides have spent more time arguing doctrinal terminology and interpretations of theology than reaching out to a lost world. The irony of the disagreement is that Calvinists, who believe in predestination, are sometimes more active in witnessing and evangelism than Arminians who believe that man has a free will and should be encouraged to accept Christ as Savior. God, of course, looks on the heart and the actions rather than on the eloquence with which one defends a position.

CONCERNS:

Although the Assemblies of God adheres basically to the Arminian position on the spiritual security of the believer, there are extremes and potential abuses which must be avoided. The Christian life is not a roller coaster of Sunday salvation and Monday through Saturday backsliding. On the other hand, no Christian, no matter how spiritual, can claim perfection and sinlessness (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1). Therefore as Christians we must continually come to God sincerely asking His forgiveness for living below the potential He makes possible through the gift of His Holy Spirit.

The truth of God’s marvelous and free grace has sadly led some to imagine and indulge in a cheap grace, a grace that covers all sins with no need to live a holy life. Such an attitude is an insult to the great price Christ paid to purchase our salvation. Though we may fail and fall, and sometimes sin, the heart of the true believer always regrets, repents, asks forgiveness, and seeks never to sin that way again. To carelessly participate in sin, expecting to gain forgiveness later, is itself an act of backsliding that will lead ultimately to losing one’s salvation. We therefore reject any “once saved, always saved” doctrine that excuses sinful lifestyles.

Once saved can mean forever saved–if one continues in faith, growing in sanctification and holiness day by day. But God will not arbitrarily usurp mankind’s free will. Our sovereign God does not overrule free will just to prove He is sovereign.

The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching. The official delineation of this position is found in the General Council Bylaws, Article VIII: Doctrines and Practices Disapproved, and Position Paper: The Security of the Believer.

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise specified.

 

[tqualey]

Sandusky,

Without a doubt your insights are truly astounding! Did you come up with this profoundity all by yourself, or did someone help you?

Newflash: All of the ECFs have given their own personal, fallible man-made interpretations.

That’s because they were all fallible men. :yup:

Tell 'ya what - here is another ‘Newsflash’ Except for Christ, and by the special Grace of God, His Blessed Mother, Mary, ever since Adam all man has been fallible by their very nature. This group also includes the Apostles.

What needs to be fully grasped is that these ECF were chronologically closest to the Apostles and to the Early Catholic Church. Persecution and heretics were the common order of the day - hmmmmm… not too different from today!

Like Judas, there were undoubtedly some who saw and heard but chose to either not believe or later to renouce their belief. But, the majority of these men stayed faithful to the teachings of Christ and His: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The ECF, whose written works are preserved today, are a fountain of wisdom and holiness - and well worth the time read and think about the topic they chose to address. I understand that Luther, among others used to read St. Agustine.

God bless

 

[paul_c]

Firstmode,
Thanks for Sharing the Assemblies of God version of salvation. It was well done and well thought out.

At first blush, it is very close to the Catholic Position. I wonder why the author’s didn’t recognize that, choosing instead to contrast it as the middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Like you, we believe in a balance between the sovereignty of God and the reality of his Gift of Free will. Like you, we believe that man is initially justified before God because of Jesus’s great sacrifice. To gain this initial grace, which is sufficient for salvation, man needs to be baptized in the Name of the Father, the son and the holy spirit. This initial justification does not rely on the merit of man, but it a gift of mercy and love. It is unclear from you article how someone from the Assembly of God is initially justified

Like you, we believe that “Once saved can mean forever saved–if one continues in faith, growing in sanctification and holiness day by day.”. For us Catholics, if we remain in the state of Grace, we will be saved. Like you, we also believe that man can fall from the state of Grace through sin, the free will choice to go against God’s will. As your article points out, this is a scripturally sound position.

Like you, Catholics recognize that men will fall from Grace. In the Catholic church, you can regain grace through the sacrament of reconciliation if you confess your sins with full contrition, if you repent and do full penance. For Catholics, life is a journey toward holiness, as we learn to do God’s will through faith and good works, and also a test to see how we will use our free will in Good times and in Bad. If we end our lives in the state of Grace, then we believe that God will fulfill his promise of the reward of eternal life, which is freely given out of love and mercy, not as a wage earned because no man can have a claim against his maker.

Again, I find it interesting that the Assemblies of God would fail to recognize the closeness of its theology to Catholicism, since Catholicism is the basis of all Christian faiths and is by far the biggest Church. In fact, the article fails to contemplate Catholicism as Christian at all, saying:

The Christian religious world divides basically into two schools of thought concerning the spiritual destiny of people. One is Calvinism, named after John Calvin (early 16th century); the other is Arminianism, traced back to James Arminius (late 16th century). The theological debate is thus centuries old.

I think this does a disservice to the Assembly of God member by failing to recognize the true basis of the discussion, which started in the Catholic Church 2000 years ago, not in the 16th century with the Reformation, where the Calvanists and Arminianist simply took positions at the opposite extremes of the central Catholic position, the first favoring God’s sovereignty at the expense of free will and the second favoring free will at the expense of God’s sovereignty.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, firstmode,

Thank you for your post. I read and re-read the material and found it quite interesting.

This is from the Assemblies of God…
The Christian religious world divides basically into two schools of thought concerning the spiritual destiny of people. One is Calvinism, named after John Calvin (early 16th century); the other is Arminianism, traced back to James Arminius (late 16th century). The theological debate is thus centuries old.

Calvinism teaches (1) the total depravity of man, (2) God’s unconditional election (or predestination) of those who will be saved, (3) that Christ died only for the elect, not for every person, (4) that God’s saving grace toward the elect cannot be resisted, and (5) that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation.

Arminianism teaches something different on each of these points: (1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God. (2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God’s salvation makes them responsible. (3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation (4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian. (5) One’s salvation can be lost through willful disobedience. Rather than the unconditional predestination of Calvinism, Arminianism teaches conditional predestination. We are predestined to eternal life if we accept God’s provision of salvation.

Prior to reading this, I was not familiar with Arminius - only Calvin. Now, after having read these 5 positon statemes - and them alone - I am thinking that they sound like the Catholic teachings:

**(1) Though born a sinner, mankind is given a spark of divine grace that enables him to respond positively to God.

(2) God does not arbitrarily consign some people to eternal damnation; their willful rejection of God’s salvation makes them responsible.

(3) Christ died for every person, even though some refuse to accept the provision for their salvation

(4) No person is forced against his or her will to become a Christian.

(5) One’s salvation can be lost through willful disobedience. **

Now, how the Assemblies of God actually explains these items, and their other beliefs is not a question - just these 5 as writen and presented.

Here is question to the list, have I missed something here? Are these actually teachings of the CC?

Thanks for your help.

God bless

 

[moondweller]

paul c:

Like you, we believe that man is initially justified before God because of Jesus’s great sacrifice. To gain this initial grace, which is sufficient for salvation, man needs to be baptized in the Name of the Father, the son and the holy spirit.

Yet Scripture says:Rom 3:29-30 "Or is God {the God} of Jews only? Is He not {the God} of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.There’s no “initial” justification stated here, or anywhere in Scripture. Just the divinely revealed fact of it. Nor baptism, but faith alone.Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"Not his baptism, but “his faith.” Always, faith alone.

This initial justification does not rely on the merit of man, but it a gift of mercy and love. It is unclear from you article how someone from the Assembly of God is initially justified

The word “initially” was not used.

Like you, we believe that “Once saved can mean forever saved–if one continues in faith, growing in sanctification and holiness day by day.”

Your “if” condition, by default, cancels out the false notion of your “once saved” condition. In Catholicism one is not “saved” UNTIL he satisfies the probationary “if” condition demanded by it. Leaving Catholics clueless as to their salvation status and bound to a system of sacramentalism, rather than a “walk by faith” in what God accomplished, once for all, in the sacrificial work of His incarnate Son on the cross.

For us Catholics, if we remain in the state of Grace, we will be saved.

There you go, that’s better: “will be saved.” In other words, salvation by works alone.

Like you, we also believe that man can fall from the state of Grace through sin

Rendering the substitutionary, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ totally insignificant in respect to salvation and the forgiveness of sins. But Scripture says…Col 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Col 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

If we end our lives in the state of Grace, then we believe that God will fulfill his promise of the reward of eternal life, which is freely given out of love and mercy, not as a wage earned because no man can have a claim against his maker.

You present a blatant contradiction of terms. If it’s a “reward” it’s not 'freely given. A “reward” is recompense, a payment due for services rendered; a wage. Scripture, on the other hand, presents eternal life as a “gift,” not a reward:Rom 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.And a surety, a present possession of every true believer:John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

1 John 5:11-13 “And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

Again, I find it interesting that the Assemblies of God would fail to recognize the closeness of its theology to Catholicism, since Catholicism is the basis of all Christian faiths and is by far the biggest Church.

Here’s the Biblical basis for the true Christian faith and divine justification:Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,Nope, nothing “initial” about this, pending works of righteousness. But instead Paul says:1 Cor 1:21 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."You see, from the time of Abraham, it’s been revealed that it’s one’s faith that God reckons to the believer as righteousness (justification, Gen. 15:6). That’s faith alone…“not as a result of works.” The object of salvation faith during this church age is the Person and sacrificial work of the incarnate Son. One is to believe the testimony of God concerning Him.

 

[paul_c]

Moondweller,
We’ve been having this conversation for months and yet you still misrepresent the Catholic position.

It up to you to agree with or disagree with the Catholic position, but please, at least make the attempt to agree or disagree on our ACTUAL position.

Man was initially justified by Faith through the sacrament of Baptism, which cleanses us of our sin and puts us in the state of Grace. If we die in this state, we will be saved.

You quarrel with the word initially justified but as our breathren in the Assemblies of God note, there is ample scriptural support for justification to be lost through sin, which makes the word “initial” appropriate. I’ll just remind you of their proofs:

Luke 8:13 makes clear the fact that believers can lose their salvation. It says some “believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.” Revelation 22:19 says “If anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life, and in the holy city.”

We believe that if you willingly turn from God (and every sin has a component of will in it), you lose grace. This Grace can be recovered by cleansing yourself again through the sacrament of reconciliation. this is only valid with an honest and contrite confession, true repetence and penance. In other words, we need to really want to be back in God’s grace. To stay in Grace, we need to demonstrate our faith through action.

Now the great difficulty between us is that you think that man has no responsibility for his actions . As we have discussed numerous times, this is not supported by scripture. Matt 7: 21-23, Matt 19: 16-19 and Matt 25: 31-46 all state that we will be judged by our actions. You can call this salvation by works, if you like, but you know that this is not the whole truth. Salvation requires Grace, faith and works in that order.

As for your continual statement that the Catholic sotierology renders the cross insignificant, you must admit that this is not true. Without Christ 'scross, we can not get the initial grace required for salvation nor would we have the sacrament of reconciliation to regain Grace after sin. Furthermore there would be no faith that are the basis of Good works, and we all agree that good works without the loving intent to do God’s will are meaningless. So Christ Cross is essential to salvation in the Catholic sotierology.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you should no longer characterize the Catholic faith as one of Works only salvation, Nor should you state that our Faith renders the cross insignificant, because it doesn’t.

Its fair game for you to continue to claim you believe that Faith alone is sufficient, but you know there are strong scriptural refutes to that statement. You can also continue to believe that Salvation is granted once for all at the first announcement of Faith, but you know that that also can easily be exposed as false through scripture. In the end, aren’t you just fooling yourself?