SPLIT: How is a Catholic saved?

[fxcc]

“WORKS” vs “WORKS OF LAW”.

Proponents of the Sola Fide doctrine often back up the line “a man is justified by faith alone,” with St Paul’s words, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” Romans 3:28

However, there is a world of difference between these two statements.

The first sentence means that **nothing **can be added to faith for justification, not even love. But, of course, that would contradict St Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5:4-6 that a man is “justified by … faith working through love,” and in 1 Corinthians 13:2 that faith without love “is nothing.”

The second sentence, so often interpreted to signify Paul’s discounting of “works” as a necessity, merely means that “works of law,” whatever they mean to St. Paul, is the only thing that cannot be added to faith for justification. This leaves open the possibility of adding love and hope.

Of course, the question then still remains as to what St. Paul actually means by “works of law.”

The answer is revealed just a few verses later in Romans 4:4:

**Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a grace, but as what is due. **

In other words, the works which St. Paul intends not to be coupled with faith for justification are “works of debt,” meaning, works whereby we try to earn, by legal right, our justification from God, as when an employee does work and then demands payment from his employer.

To that sort of works St. Paul says “no, no!” You can’t come to God by putting him in debt to you, because God owes no man anything (Romans 11:35). You must come seeking what cannot be earned, that is, God’s grace. God wants you to believe in Him for who He is, not for what you can get out of Him. Thus, St. Paul is excluding only one kind of works - works of debt (works of law), wherein one tries to obligate God to pay him salvation. Why then did Luther exclude love and hope? Because, he said, St. Paul considered them as “works of law.” But “works of law” merely refer to “works of debt”, as just explained. Otherwise the verse makes no sense at all. Catholics have always understood this.

The other kind of work, that St. Paul accepts and indeed commands us to perform to attain our justification, is work performed under God’s grace. For example, in Romans 2:7 he says: “To those who persist in doing good…He will give eternal life.” There’s nothing here about our “earning” eternal life, but plenty concerning God “giving,” especially since Romans 2:4 refers to God’s “kindness, tolerance and patience,” which are God’s virtues we receive by grace. In Romans 2:13 St. Paul says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are just with God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”

Grace-oriented and grace-blessed works can be added to faith for justification because these works don’t put God in debt to us. God rewards us with eternal life for our good works not because He owes us anything, but because He enjoys giving freely to those who please Him out of a sincere heart. That is what salvation is all about.

 

[fxcc]

“WORKS” vs “WORKS OF LAW”.

Proponents of the Sola Fide doctrine often back up the line “a man is justified by faith alone,” with St Paul’s words, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” Romans 3:28

However, there is a world of difference between these two statements.

The first sentence means that **nothing **can be added to faith for justification, not even love. But, of course, that would contradict St Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5:4-6 that a man is “justified by … faith working through love,” and in 1 Corinthians 13:2 that faith without love “is nothing.”

The second sentence, so often interpreted to signify Paul’s discounting of “works” as a necessity, merely means that “works of law,” whatever they mean to St. Paul, is the only thing that cannot be added to faith for justification. This leaves open the possibility of adding love and hope.

Of course, the question still remains as to what St. Paul actually means by “works of law.”

The answer is revealed just a few verses later in Romans 4:4:

In other words, the works which St. Paul intends not to be coupled with faith for justification are “works of debt,” meaning, works whereby we try to earn, by legal right, our justification from God, as when an employee does work and then demands payment from his employer.

To that sort of works St. Paul says “no, no!” You can’t come to God by putting him in debt to you, because God owes no man anything (Romans 11:35). You must come seeking what cannot be earned, that is, God’s grace. God wants you to believe in Him for who He is, not for what you can get out of Him. Thus, St. Paul is excluding only one kind of works - works of debt (works of law), wherein one tries to obligate God to pay him salvation. Why then did Luther exclude love and hope? Because, he said, St. Paul considered them as “works of law.” But “works of law” merely refer to “works of debt”, as just explained. Otherwise the verse makes no sense at all. Catholics have always understood this.

The other kind of work, that St. Paul accepts and indeed commands us to perform to attain our justification, is work performed under God’s grace. For example, in Romans 2:7 he says: “To those who persist in doing good…He will give eternal life.” There’s nothing here about our “earning” eternal life, but plenty concerning God “giving,” especially since Romans 2:4 refers to God’s “kindness, tolerance and patience,” which are God’s virtues we receive by grace. In Romans 2:13 St. Paul says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are just with God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”

Grace-oriented and grace-blessed works can be added to faith for justification because these works don’t put God in debt to us. God rewards us with eternal life for our good works not because He owes us anything, but because He enjoys giving freely to those who please Him out of a sincere heart. That is what salvation is all about.

 

[inkaneer]

The only one who accuse me of being an infallible interpreter of Scripture are Catholics; anyone including myself knows that there is one infallible interpreter of Scripture, which is the Holy Spirit who is given to those who come to Jesus with a true heart of repentance by faith in His promises through His death, burial and resurrection. It is the work of the Holy Spirt to lead all Christians into the truth and the more one reads and obeys the more blessed and the more Truth that is revealed to each individual.

I understand the importance you and others put on Sacraments of your religion and I respect that for who am I to say you are wrong? I can only go by what I believe is contained in the Scriptures and obey as much as possible.

Beth, does it make any sense to you that God would execute His plan of salvation as He did, to include the death of His only begotten Son and then have people run willy nilly all over the place with no set authority? Consider, if you will, the Old Testament. You know that it has been said that the OT prefigures the NT so lets look at God’s model of the church in the OT. There the church was the nation of Israel and every step of the way from Abraham down to Moses to the prohets and the Davidic kingship, God provided an earthly leader for that OT church. Did He have to? No, but He choose to. For their part, all the time the OT church followed God’s earthly leader they prospered. The only times they suffered was when they chose to go against what God’s earthly leader was telling them. The Davidic kingship was set up in the OT and we know that Jesus was born into the lineage of the Davidic kings. The kings of Israel had stewards that oversaw different aspects of the kingdom and there were twelve of these stewards, one for every tribe. Of these twelve stewards the King would select one to be the chief steward who would act on behalf of the king and as such he would have the authority of the king. Isaiah 22:22 speaks of this chief steward:

“And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” [Is 22:22]

The OT chief steward held authority to lock or unlock. Now fast forward to the NT. Here we find Jesus, the Davidic king, picking 12 stewards [disciples/apostles] and from them He chooses one to be the chief steward and names him Peter. And Jesus says of this chief steward:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt16:19]

Here Simon Peter is given the keys to the House of God that what ever he binds [locks] no one can loose and whatever he looses [unlocks] no one can bind. The similarity between the NT and the OT is not a coincidence.

Now the OT chief steward occupied an office that he was appointed to. It was not something that was past down in the family as was the kingship. Someone else could be appointed as chief steward. And so it is in the NT. Peter the first chief steward is martyred and another chief steward replaces him and down through the generations we have the succession of chief stewards of the NT church. It mirrors the OT perfectly. There is nothing in protestantism even remotely like it.

Next let’s look at scripture. How do you know that the 27 books of the NT are inspired? The fact is that Catholic Bishops in the late fourth century decided they were. The church of that time accepted their decision and in the process accepted their authority to make that decision. Those same books are in every bible whether it be protestant or Catholic. But wonder if, as protestants claim, that the Catholic Church did not have any authority. What assurance do we have then that those books are indeed inspired? Can you or anyone else prove any book is inspired? Try proving the letter to Philomen is inspired. You can’t, neither can I. With no authority that decision made so long ago becomes one of a mere guess, an opinion that anyone could either accept or refute. Protestants have accepted that decision without exception and in doing so have done what the church of the ;late fourth century did,; they accepted the authority of those making the decision. Again you have to face the fact that the canon of the NT was set by the Catholic Church 1100 years before there was even one sola scripturist on the face of the earth. Accepting that canon is a de facto acceptance of the authority of the Catholic Church to make that decision. You may not like that as it differs from what you want to believe but if you are indeed in a search for truth then you have to be honest enough to accept truth. For the truth can only make you free.

There is no freedom in protestantism. That may sound illogical but tell me when is a train most free when it is on the tracks and able to do what a train does or is it more free when it leaves the track and becomes a mass of twisted metal? Or take the case of sheep since that is used in scripture as a description of the followers of Christ. Are sheep more free in the herd under the care of the shepherd or are they more free outside the herd among the wolves? In John 21:15-17 Jesus told Peter that he was to feed Jesus’ flock and Peter was to tend to Jesus’ flock.

 

[mpjw2]

Fxcc…in my last post I adressed you chris …I am so sorry …

 

[Church_Militant]

I can answer this… How Is A Catholic Saved?

Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Church_Militant]

Fxcc…in my last post I adressed you chris …I am so sorry …

LOL…You’re a girl aren’t you? Phraseology…

 

[mpjw2]

LOL…You’re a girl aren’t you? Phraseology…

afraid not… I am a guy …Look at my post a few back I gave testimony about my wife

Got bless

 

[fxcc]

Fxcc…in my last post I adressed you chris …I am so sorry …

That’s OK. I didn’t spit my dummy because my Confirmation name happens to be Chris(topher).

 

[fxcc]

Whenever I see any of you write you must obey the commandments; I **chuckle **because the two commandments that Christ gave are the summary of the OT commandments, which no one is able to keep which is the point of the law to show that you are sinners **incapable **of keeping them and why we need a Savior and without that Savior to **cover **our transgressions, then no one will be in heaven.

WOW!

Matthew 19
If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus would **never **tell me, directly or indirectly, not ever, never ever, that I’m a sinner who is just plain incapable of keeping the Commandments with the help of His grace (particularly in the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist) and simultaneously exhort me to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. He’d have to be schizophrenic to do that.

The Catholic Church rightly teaches that a man **can **indeed lead a totally blameless life by heroic cooperation with God’s grace.

On the other side, we have this Gospel of No Hope of Holiness, which denies the efficacy of the graces of a God in whom “I **can **do **all **things”. This fatal error arises out of:

1. a hideously blasphemous interpretation of predestination (which preaches that an all-good God would create persons merely to send them to hell - although at the same time He would die for **all **men!), coupled with
2. unquestioning acquiesence to a heretic’s rants:

" I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind" - Martin Luther, (Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette)

“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews.” - Martin Luther, (Luther’s Works, Wittenberg ed., ad.5:1573).

If this is not a diabolically fatalistic put down of the intrinsic goodness of man, created in God’s own image and likeness, then I don’t know what is.

If this is not a subtle but definite inducement to sin - which will be “covered” by Christ’s Blood and thus won’t effectively matter at the end of the day - then I don’t know what is.

If this does not typify the sin of despair in the help of a God who “comes to our aid” in time of every trial and temptation by the enemy of our souls, then I don’t know what does.

I’m afraid some chuckles actually sound more like a death rattle to my ears.

 

[Des]

Des, You have no idea, except what is taught by your church on the nature of sin and how God has dealt with the sins of the true repentant Christian.

Not all other sS believers believe in your osas doctrine so what you pretty much said abovie is a moot point.

I do not need to go to a Catholic priest for that is contrary to the Word of God. There is one intercessor between man and God and that is Jesus Christ. No one comes to the Father except through the Son. etc.

Start some new threads dealing with this. Bet you’ll parrot off the same verses others have tried and it will get you nowhere fast.

In my opinion this idea of a confessional that evolved over time a form of disobedience to the command of Christ, that is my opinion based on what I read in Scripture.

Yes, it’s only your opinion which holds zero authority. Myself and many ex protestants seem to disagree with you however. And I can’t make you see anything in Scripture you don’t want to see.

The only one who accuse me of being an infallible interpreter of Scripture are Catholics; anyone including myself knows that there is one infallible interpreter of Scripture, which is the Holy Spirit who is given to those who come to Jesus with a true heart of repentance by faith in His promises through His death, burial and resurrection.

Take mpjw for instance. He’s not Catholic but disagrees with you regarding your osas doctrine. Why? Are you saying he’s not being lead by the Holy Spirit regarding this but you are only? How do you both resolve this issue? Who gets to preach to the flock on this topic. You or him? Both of you? This definitly wasn’t the Apostles way. They had a Council remember. Let me know when your 30,000 denoms get one together. I’d be interested in attending.

And I accuse you of being an infallible interpreter because you attempt to teach with some sort of authority what the Bible is saying. I’ve yet to open a Bible and have God literally talk and explain things through it. Your mind has to do this and it’s obvious since many protestants differ and conflict, alot has to do with ignorance or pride. Amazing though how you’ll each then make the claim that only ‘you’ are special and the Holy Spirit is working through ‘you’ only. It’s laughable I’m sorry.

From now on, I think you’ll be better off on here beginning your posts with ‘In My Opinion’ because that’s really all that it is.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to lead all Christians into the truth and the more one reads and obeys the more blessed and the more Truth that is revealed to each individual.

I’m sorry. But when each and every protestant has to scratch and claw his/her way to ‘the truth’ from the beginning, then go back and forth on even those during their life, or cherry pick their churches based on who’s closer to their belief, then that certainly doesn’t sound like the work of the Holy Spirit but another spirit. A spirit of confusion. And he’s very baaaaaaaad.

Whenever I see any of you write you must obey the commandments; I chuckle because the two commandments that Christ gave are the summary of the OT commandments, which no one is able to keep which is the point of the law to show that you are sinners incapable of keeping them and why we need a Savior and without that Savior to cover our transgressions, then no one will be in heaven.

Yes, keep thinking that Beth. It’s much easier to give yourself an excuse when you sin rather than hold yourself accountable. Aside from that, I’ve already shown you a couple verse that say otherwise.

 

[mpjw2]

That’s OK. I didn’t spit my dummy because my Confirmation name happens to be Chris(topher).

wow …what a coincidence

 

[Beth_Martin]

thank you beth for your response. I agree with everything you just stated

you are a witness to the love of God

Beth,
the reason I ask the question
…

which you did not answer but your answer gave me pretty good indication of what you believe…

Beth …I believe we do have control of our destiny…

when we sin, we ask for forgiveness as you said

however, I asked you the question because …let’s say a christian employee felt pressured and outright lied about something and cost their company a lot of money.

lying is a sin…right?

If a that person went through life and never confessed and or repented that lie and died with that lie on their soul…
what do you believe will be that person’s destiny?

My belief is since that person never confess and repented that lie to God, they would spend eternity in hell.

Unfortunately, I encountered many of Christians who believe in OSAS to the extreme.

I also believe it is for that reason it gives all non catholic Christians a bad reputation.

…I do not believe in OSAS… where a person will say

I met people who claim to be christians who said just that

Everytime I hear this I let people know God’s salvation is not a free ticket to heaven, that they can’t live their life anyway they want to and/or sin anyway they want to.

there has to be a sincere desire NOT to sin anymore, to hate sin.
thereby
having a sincere desire to want to follow the will of God and to please Him

thank you Beth and all who read theis post

God bless

mpjw

I would say if you do a study on how the word repentance is used throughout the NT; you would drawl a different conclusion. For one cannot enter the Kingdom of God without a genuine heart of repentance. Based on your thinking and knowing how God views just a single sin, the two do not correspond for God sees lying as much a sin as if I went to the supermarket and had two bottle of $1.00 water sitting under the cart, then got home and discovered I had not paid for them. Well it is just $2.00, but since I am aware of it I would go back and bring it to the stores attention and pay the $2.00, but let’s say i did realize it and did nothing. Will God then remove my citizenship from heaven? The answer would be yes if you believe one can lose their salvation and the answer would be no if one believes we are sealed by the Holy Spirit till the day of Jesus Christ, which is what the Bible teaches.

Listen to what the holy Spirit says through the apostle Peter: ***The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. *** – May I say that repentence is the essential element of genuine faith and in this verse it is synonymous with salvation.

If one came to the Lord and was accepted by the Lord to the one who asked with a heart of repentance, will that uconfessed sin now deliver one out of HIs hands?

You may want to see how repentance is used throughout the NT. I will email you a link you can look and make a great Bible study from. Just say the word and I will send you the link.

Here are a few passages you can preview if you like.
Romans 2:4-- "Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?"

**Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”-Matt. 3:1-2

"And from that time, that is the beginning of His ministry, Jesus began to preach and say, Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." -Matthew 4:17 (Jesus speaking)

**1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 "Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5 “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” **-Luke 13

Martin Luther

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying, “Repent ye, etc.,” intended that the whole life of his believers on earth should be a constant penance.
2. Therefore mortification continues as long as hatred of oneself continues, that is to say, true inward penance lasts until entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Luther had it right, the Christian life is one that never stops being sorrowful for ones sins regardless of size.

My honest assessment is that most people never enter the Kingdom of God that know all the right things, but never came to Him with true and genuine heart of repentance and humility; rather they perform externals that are not a true and genuine inward faith that God accepts as true repentance.

If I speak with someone about God, I want to know two things right off 1) Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God 2) How has your life changed in regards to sin.

 

[Beth_Martin]

wow i am busy answering your questions …phew

I look forward to your answers to my answers

I can not thank you all enough for you time and patience

from my last post to Paul i saw a big void where there is a misunderstanding of the way of non catholic christians.

We all do not all believe in OSAS …live your life any way you want and at the end God will save you

I am now positive you have no idea what the Perseverance of the Saints is; often quoted as OSAS and almost always attached to “easy believism”.

Perseverance of the Saints - is it Biblical?

This is a simple understanding and a short read from a simple google search; there is much more that can be said as to what it is and what it is not and many many more Scriptural passages to support this, but this will suffice for this post. If you want to know more on this topic I can send you some more indepth resources. Denying the clear Biblical teaching on perseverance is equivelent to denying the sovernegnty of God in salvation and taking the glory of salvation from Him and giving it to oneself.

Being one who states they believe the Bible, then you should be able to clearly see this Biblical truth. The hard part is getting past the paradox that it is all of God and yet we are held responsible at the same time. How God works this out in a just and equitable manner is His problem and beyond the capacity of human understanding; I walk by faith and trust in His justice and mercies knowing that He has it all worked out.

Beth

 

[Beth_Martin]

Frankly, I don’t find the little voices in your head to be credible witnesses to the truth, particularly if those voices told you to abandon the sacraments and leave the church .

God speaks to me everyday; everytime I open or listen to His word He speaks. Not with little voices in my head, but through the holy Spirit who authored the Holy Scriptures. So if God is speaking through external actions, which is more bizarre than little voices in my opinion, then perhaps it is time to open up His word where the Word can actually and really penetrate the heart and soul–just a thought and 2 cents from an ole God lovin’ Christian.

 

[Beth_Martin]

No, but I assume for the better since you are so passionate. But I assure you, there is more…

Come on Beth, the sacraments are all over scripture. The new testament starts out with the story of John the Baptist and Jesus’ own baptism. The conclusion of Matthew’s Gospel, (28: 18-20) includes Jesus’ commission to baptize all the nation. In Acts 2, Peter tells the first converts that they must be baptized. IN John 6, we are told that we must eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus to have life within us. In Titus and Timothy, they discuss ordination with the laying on of hands. Jesus’ first miracle was at a wedding…

If you had faith enough to move mountains, but don’t have love, you are nothing… (1corinthians 13), Faith without works is dead (James 2)

Beth, unfortunately you have been decieved into believing in sola fide. This is the context under which you should understand that passage. We are not to work for wages, but out of love. doing what we do without expecting anything in return. When we learn to love like that, we will become holy.

Beth, we need to love. And that means doing things for God and Neighbor without expecting anything back. It is only through love that you can be saved. That is what Jesus taught. Remember, his death on the cross was an act of LOVE for sinful man. We need to follow him and also love. Faith without love is just empty words .

See, this is exactly what is being said above. You need to love. Faith is not enough.

You have it backwards; genuine faith results in fruits of the Spirit, one of which is love and righteous works that God preordained beforehand that the person of God would walk in them. You meantion one Sacrament of water baptism, which is an ordainance and does not result in receiving saving grace, least one works in believing because they did something that God now owes them some form of saving grace, which is counted as a wage that is due. Then grace is no longer grace, which is the point Paul was making about the externals. To say you do it out of love and expect nothing is return is bogus; it is contrary to your own churchs teaching on the subject of Sacraments. You perform them in the expectation of receiving something for yourself.

13 “But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION {Love based on inward & true faith}, AND NOT SACRIFICE {the Externals},’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

 

[Beth_Martin]

Okay. I will give you my personal witness. About 10 years ago, I went to confession and the priest told me to go to a weekday mass as my penance. I was nervous about this because I had never been to anything other than a weekend mass and didn’t know what to expect. But I went and then I went again , and again and again until I reached the point of going to mass every day. I increased my reading of the bible from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 and now 5 chapters daily. I started teaching CCD (religious education) and reading the lives of the saints. I began to take part in the Catholic devotions : the rosary, the stations of the cross, the miraculous medal novenas and ultimately, eucharistic adoration. I began to witness on the internet and in the local men’s group. All along the way, my prayer life increased and yes, I too became more aware of my sins and deficiencies, which allowed me to make the necessary adjustments. ( a process that continues of course).

Thank you for opening your heart and sharing and I mean that will all sincerity as the Lord is my witness, but do you see what is missing in all of that?

 

[Beth_Martin]

“WORKS” vs “WORKS OF LAW”.

Proponents of the Sola Fide doctrine often back up the line “a man is justified by faith alone,” with St Paul’s words, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” Romans 3:28

However, there is a world of difference between these two statements.

The first sentence means that **nothing **can be added to faith for justification, not even love. But, of course, that would contradict St Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5:4-6 that a man is “justified by … faith working through love,” and in 1 Corinthians 13:2 that faith without love “is nothing.”

The second sentence, so often interpreted to signify Paul’s discounting of “works” as a necessity, merely means that “works of law,” whatever they mean to St. Paul, is the only thing that cannot be added to faith for justification. This leaves open the possibility of adding love and hope.

Of course, the question then still remains as to what St. Paul actually means by “works of law.”

The answer is revealed just a few verses later in Romans 4:4:

In other words, the works which St. Paul intends not to be coupled with faith for justification are “works of debt,” meaning, works whereby we try to earn, by legal right, our justification from God, as when an employee does work and then demands payment from his employer.

To that sort of works St. Paul says “no, no!” You can’t come to God by putting him in debt to you, because God owes no man anything (Romans 11:35). You must come seeking what cannot be earned, that is, God’s grace. God wants you to believe in Him for who He is, not for what you can get out of Him. Thus, St. Paul is excluding only one kind of works - works of debt (works of law), wherein one tries to obligate God to pay him salvation. Why then did Luther exclude love and hope? Because, he said, St. Paul considered them as “works of law.” But “works of law” merely refer to “works of debt”, as just explained. Otherwise the verse makes no sense at all. Catholics have always understood this.

The other kind of work, that St. Paul accepts and indeed commands us to perform to attain our justification, is work performed under God’s grace. For example, in Romans 2:7 he says: “To those who persist in doing good…He will give eternal life.” There’s nothing here about our “earning” eternal life, but plenty concerning God “giving,” especially since Romans 2:4 refers to God’s “kindness, tolerance and patience,” which are God’s virtues we receive by grace. In Romans 2:13 St. Paul says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are just with God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”

Grace-oriented and grace-blessed works can be added to faith for justification because these works don’t put God in debt to us. God rewards us with eternal life for our good works not because He owes us anything, but because He enjoys giving freely to those who please Him out of a sincere heart. That is what salvation is all about.

You missed the gospel in its entirety just by the last sentance. God rewards a Christian for works He prepared as heavenly rewards, not eternal life, that, eternal life is given on the sole basis of His grace, not because you have pleased Him. You cannot work enough to please Him to have eternal life. Have you ever heard of rewards in heaven outside of eternal life, which is not a reward but a gift of His grace and His mercy?

What are Sacramennts if not works; do you not work hard in preparation of them and then going through the performance of them and as a result of all that work & preparation; you then are expecting a reward from God in the form of “saving grace”; that is no longer grace but a wage…Pauls very point. What Jesus said He “desires compassion and NOT sacrafice.”

I have said enough; I am just thankful that God in His mercy allows some to see through the externals and will have people at the banquet from every denomination.

I’ll answer or comment on any remaining posts before I move onward to another topic; I have nothing else worth adding to the discussion and I thank each of you for being charitable.

May God bless you and you and you and you…
Beth

 

[Beth_Martin]

Beth, does it make any sense to you that God would execute His plan of salvation as He did, to include the death of His only begotten Son and then have people run willy nilly all over the place with no set authority? Consider, if you will, the Old Testament. You know that it has been said that the OT prefigures the NT so lets look at God’s model of the church in the OT. There the church was the nation of Israel and every step of the way from Abraham down to Moses to the prohets and the Davidic kingship, God provided an earthly leader for that OT church. Did He have to? No, but He choose to. For their part, all the time the OT church followed God’s earthly leader they prospered. The only times they suffered was when they chose to go against what God’s earthly leader was telling them. The Davidic kingship was set up in the OT and we know that Jesus was born into the lineage of the Davidic kings. The kings of Israel had stewards that oversaw different aspects of the kingdom and there were twelve of these stewards, one for every tribe. Of these twelve stewards the King would select one to be the chief steward who would act on behalf of the king and as such he would have the authority of the king. Isaiah 22:22 speaks of this chief steward:

“And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” [Is 22:22]

The OT chief steward held authority to lock or unlock. Now fast forward to the NT. Here we find Jesus, the Davidic king, picking 12 stewards [disciples/apostles] and from them He chooses one to be the chief steward and names him Peter. And Jesus says of this chief steward:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt16:19]

Here Simon Peter is given the keys to the House of God that what ever he binds [locks] no one can loose and whatever he looses [unlocks] no one can bind. The similarity between the NT and the OT is not a coincidence.

Now the OT chief steward occupied an office that he was appointed to. It was not something that was past down in the family as was the kingship. Someone else could be appointed as chief steward. And so it is in the NT. Peter the first chief steward is martyred and another chief steward replaces him and down through the generations we have the succession of chief stewards of the NT church. It mirrors the OT perfectly. There is nothing in protestantism even remotely like it.

Next let’s look at scripture. How do you know that the 27 books of the NT are inspired? The fact is that Catholic Bishops in the late fourth century decided they were. The church of that time accepted their decision and in the process accepted their authority to make that decision. Those same books are in every bible whether it be protestant or Catholic. But wonder if, as protestants claim, that the Catholic Church did not have any authority. What assurance do we have then that those books are indeed inspired? Can you or anyone else prove any book is inspired? Try proving the letter to Philomen is inspired. You can’t, neither can I. With no authority that decision made so long ago becomes one of a mere guess, an opinion that anyone could either accept or refute. Protestants have accepted that decision without exception and in doing so have done what the church of the ;late fourth century did,; they accepted the authority of those making the decision. Again you have to face the fact that the canon of the NT was set by the Catholic Church 1100 years before there was even one sola scripturist on the face of the earth. Accepting that canon is a de facto acceptance of the authority of the Catholic Church to make that decision. You may not like that as it differs from what you want to believe but if you are indeed in a search for truth then you have to be honest enough to accept truth. For the truth can only make you free.

There is no freedom in protestantism. That may sound illogical but tell me when is a train most free when it is on the tracks and able to do what a train does or is it more free when it leaves the track and becomes a mass of twisted metal? Or take the case of sheep since that is used in scripture as a description of the followers of Christ. Are sheep more free in the herd under the care of the shepherd or are they more free outside the herd among the wolves? In John 21:15-17 Jesus told Peter that he was to feed Jesus’ flock and Peter was to tend to Jesus’ flock.

He did set the authority; His name is Jesus and He works via the Holy Spirit through each believer just as He has said. The church is the collection of the believers and He expects us all to treat each other as brothers and sisters from the least to the greatest; there is no regular saint verses a super saint.

By the way to show how little you see, the parale passage of Isaiah 22:22 is ***Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: ***

Which proves the point that it is not Peter but Jesus. Peter is a little stone just like you and I and Paul and the rest of the saints; there are no super saints, there are saints and aints and God knows who are His and who are not.

 

[Beth_Martin]

WOW!

Matthew 19
If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, " ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus would **never **tell me, directly or indirectly, not ever, never ever, that I’m a sinner who is just plain incapable of keeping the Commandments with the help of His grace (particularly in the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist) and simultaneously exhort me to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. He’d have to be schizophrenic to do that.

The Catholic Church rightly teaches that a man **can **indeed lead a totally blameless life by heroic cooperation with God’s grace.

On the other side, we have this Gospel of No Hope of Holiness, which denies the efficacy of the graces of a God in whom “I **can **do **all **things”. This fatal error arises out of:

1. a hideously blasphemous interpretation of predestination (which preaches that an all-good God would create persons merely to send them to hell - although at the same time He would die for **all **men!), coupled with
2. unquestioning acquiesence to a heretic’s rants:

" I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind" - Martin Luther, (Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette)

“If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: chase yourself to the Jews.” - Martin Luther, (Luther’s Works, Wittenberg ed., ad.5:1573).

If this is not a diabolically fatalistic put down of the intrinsic goodness of man, created in God’s own image and likeness, then I don’t know what is.

If this is not a subtle but definite inducement to sin - which will be “covered” by Christ’s Blood and thus won’t effectively matter at the end of the day - then I don’t know what is.

If this does not typify the sin of despair in the help of a God who “comes to our aid” in time of every trial and temptation by the enemy of our souls, then I don’t know what does.

I’m afraid some chuckles actually sound more like a death rattle to my ears.

Show me just one who has kept the commandments besides Jesus and I will believe you.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Not all other sS believers believe in your osas doctrine so what you pretty much said abovie is a moot point.

Start some new threads dealing with this. Bet you’ll parrot off the same verses others have tried and it will get you nowhere fast.

Yes, it’s only your opinion which holds zero authority. Myself and many ex protestants seem to disagree with you however. And I can’t make you see anything in Scripture you don’t want to see.

Take mpjw for instance. He’s not Catholic but disagrees with you regarding your osas doctrine. Why? Are you saying he’s not being lead by the Holy Spirit regarding this but you are only? How do you both resolve this issue? Who gets to preach to the flock on this topic. You or him? Both of you? This definitly wasn’t the Apostles way. They had a Council remember. Let me know when your 30,000 denoms get one together. I’d be interested in attending.

And I accuse you of being an infallible interpreter because you attempt to teach with some sort of authority what the Bible is saying. I’ve yet to open a Bible and have God literally talk and explain things through it. Your mind has to do this and it’s obvious since many protestants differ and conflict, alot has to do with ignorance or pride. Amazing though how you’ll each then make the claim that only ‘you’ are special and the Holy Spirit is working through ‘you’ only. It’s laughable I’m sorry.

From now on, I think you’ll be better off on here beginning your posts with ‘In My Opinion’ because that’s really all that it is.

I’m sorry. But when each and every protestant has to scratch and claw his/her way to ‘the truth’ from the beginning, then go back and forth on even those during their life, or cherry pick their churches based on who’s closer to their belief, then that certainly doesn’t sound like the work of the Holy Spirit but another spirit. A spirit of confusion. And he’s very baaaaaaaad.

Yes, keep thinking that Beth. It’s much easier to give yourself an excuse when you sin rather than hold yourself accountable. Aside from that, I’ve already shown you a couple verse that say otherwise.

Des,

It has been nice talking with you but we have digressed to a point where we are both sinning; so i am moving along to another topic or discussion. you are right you cannot get me to see in Scripture that which is not there. You stating that somethingis or is not there is just that a statement without Scriptural support and carries no weight just as my opinion does not unless it is supported by God.

God bless and hopefully we will discuss another topic without digressing.
Beth