Was Jesus a heretic for teaching works salvation?

[guanophore]

I have searched all these posts, and it seems like Protestants can’t give a reasonable answer.

I think you will not get one, either, because your are talking about a banquet of apples and oranges attended by strawmen!

Let me ask again. We know Jesus says we need faith. We know Jesus says we are saved by grace, which He merited by His death and ressurection. This is what the Church has always taught. The Church has never taught obedience alone.

This is a common misunderstanding that non-catechized Catholics have. Since many of those in current non-Catholic communities are lapsed Catholics, doesn’t it make sense that they don’t understand the Church’s teaching? If they did, they would not have felt it necessary to leave!

Jesus also says we need to obey God to enter heaven
Matthew 19:16-17
And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

                                       **Luke 10:25-28**

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live."

Again, we all know Jesus did not say obedience alone.
We all know Jesus says we need faith, through which we receive grace.

Jesus also says we need to keep His commandments to enter heaven.

According to Protestants, this is called “works” salvation, and it is condemned by many Protestant denominations.

Here is where you are getting sucked into error with your question. Protestants, for the most part, consider “salvation” to be a one shot deal, a moment in time where one (not in accordance with any scripture) “accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior and invites Jesus into his heart”.

Although this salvation “formula” is not found in scripture, this is the common understanding of how a person gets “saved”.

So, when you bring up the issue of works, for the protestant, it has no bearing or relationship with works. Protestants see the obedience as part of a separate event or process commonly referrred to as “sanctification”. Catholics don’t separate the two, but Protestants, if they have any belief at all in the obedience teachings, consider obedience and works in Christ Jesus to be part of sanctification, and only a reflection that one is saved, rather than an integral part of that salvation, which has already occured.

Thus, is Jesus considered to be a heretic, or is Jesus considered to be teaching heretically when He ALSO says we must keep His commandments to enter heaven?

An OSAS christian (one who believes salvation cannot be lost) will usually say that keeping the commandments IS important, but is not part of salvation.

What is the official or most common Protestant response to these direct, clear, explicit teachings by Jesus?

I offer this as an ex-protestant.

If the Catholic Church is being heretical for teaching that in addition to faith and grace, we also have to keep the commandments, is Jesus being heretical for teaching the exact same thing?

Is Jesus a heretic, yes or no?
Please answer.

I think it has already been made clear that Protestants reject the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is part of their definition as “protestant”. They think the CC is heretical, and came off the rails somewhere early on, even before the reformation.

I don’t want you to go off on the subjects of faith, and or grace. We all agree that we need faith and grace. We all agree that we can’t earn our salvation. We all agree that faith is the beginning of salvation. We all agree that we are saved by grace, through faith.

Jesus ALSO teaches we need to obey His commandments to enter heaven. Thus, according to Protestantism is Jesus a heretic?

In order to qualify to be a heretic, one must first understand and believe the truth, then choose to leave it. Therefore, the application of this question with regard to Christ is irrelevant, since he is the author of the teaching.

 

[kaycee]

So, when you bring up the issue of works, for the protestant, it has no bearing or relationship with works. Protestants see the obedience as part of a separate event or process commonly referrred to as “sanctification”. Catholics don’t separate the two, but Protestants, if they have any belief at all in the obedience teachings, consider obedience and works in Christ Jesus to be part of sanctification, and only a reflection that one is saved, rather than an integral part of that salvation, which has already occured.

Salvation for the RCC is not Free, one must cooporate with works to maintain/gain saving “grace” (in reality it is now payment) to maintain a state of “grace” or infused righteousness.

Basic definitions are a huge stumbling block. Biblical Grace is unmerited favor and much different than the concept of Rome.

RC grace is akin to a form of heavenly currency that one must maintain. Sin destroys grace which may or may not take one out of the “state of grace”. Confession and good works are then needed to be performed by the person to recover the state of grace/remove the stain of sin (infused into the soul where it actually merits heaven). The RC can never be sure of ones status because it is based on himself and his “cooperation”, not on the finished work of Christ recieved as a Gift. Protests to the contrary, the reality is the RC must work/cooporate/DO stuff to receive the grace/merits gained by Christs death on the Cross after baptism (baptismal regeneration, requiring No Faith from Infants, another whole problem).

That is not Grace.

 

[guanophore]

please clarify which truth we Catholics are defending: I thought I read clearly it was faith + works. Sorry if I am being obtuse or naïve.

Not at all. I think it is clear that this is one of the most gnarly aspects of theology in Christendom.

" 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." Gal 5:5-6

I think this is a more accurate way to represent the concept. That it is “faith working through love”. The faith that saves is the faith that works. It is not work apart from faith, which is what Paul is writing about in all of his letters when he speaks about “works saving”. Paul is speaking about works of the flesh (law). On the contrary, the work we do as a new creation are based upon, and proceed from grace:

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

As a cradle Catholic who left the church for “sola fide” I can confidently say that I and all of my fellow lapsed Catholics had an inadequate understanding of the principle of grace. This lack of understanding of what Catholicism teaches is what fomented by leaving the Church, and subsequently falling for chick tracts and the like.

Salvation comes by grace, through faith. Part of that saving grace is that we are given a new heart, one that wants to obey God out of love, and awe (fear and trembling) of His holiness, toward which we strive.

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

Not work “for” but work “out”. It is the manifestation of the saving grace that already resides within. The “works” (obedience) of the Christian are the result of God being at work in the heart, “to will and to do His good pleasure”. They are not works of the flesh, or works of the law, or works to get us into heaven, but works that give God glory because they demonstrate His saving grace in us, and in the world.

 

[Mickey]

RC grace is akin to a form of heavenly currency that one must maintain.

These are serious accusations and judgements. Do you have references?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Salvation for the RCC is not Free, one must cooporate with works to maintain/gain saving “grace” (in reality it is now payment) to maintain a state of “grace” or infused righteousness.

Basic definitions are a huge stumbling block. Biblical Grace is unmerited favor and much different than the concept of Rome.

RC grace is akin to a form of heavenly currency that one must maintain. Sin destroys grace which may or may not take one out of the “state of grace”. Confession and good works are then needed to be performed by the person to recover the state of grace/remove the stain of sin (infused into the soul where it actually merits heaven). The RC can never be sure of ones status because it is based on himself and his “cooperation”, not on the finished work of Christ recieved as a Gift. Protests to the contrary, the reality is the RC must work/cooporate/DO stuff to receive the grace/merits gained by Christs death on the Cross after baptism (baptismal regeneration, requiring No Faith from Infants, another whole problem).

That is not Grace.

So…

the act of believing that Jesus is God and having faith is not an act? The profession of faith, saying the sinner’s prayer or whatever is not an act to obtain the grace offered by God thru Christ? Interesting??

Exactly how is it that these things that you DO as a protestant are not geared to receive the grace/merits gained by Christ’s death on the Cross?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

.

I am curious what is your understanding of this teaching?

14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy." 1 Cor 7:13-15

Hi,
My husband will not be saved until he understands he is a sinner in need of a savior and repent. He has not done that yet. Yes he is blessed because of me but he cannot be saved by me. He has a better chance of becoming saved because I am trying to be a Godly example–same with my kids. My family sees how I act and notice a difference and when asked I say it is because of God. My husband has recently started calling me a christian woman(if you knew us you would know how funny that sounds)
Anyway, I may be able to lead my husband to the Lord but ultimately it is between him and God. He does not become saved by default because I am–nor do my children.

Hope that helps.

 

[nerfherder]

I think you will not get one, either, because your are talking about a banquet of apples and oranges attended by strawmen! This is a common misunderstanding that non-catechized Catholics have. Since many of those in current non-Catholic communities are lapsed Catholics, doesn’t it make sense that they don’t understand the Church’s teaching? If they did, they would not have felt it necessary to leave! Here is where you are getting sucked into error with your question. Protestants, for the most part, consider “salvation” to be a one shot deal, a moment in time where one (not in accordance with any scripture) “accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior and invites Jesus into his heart”.Although this salvation “formula” is not found in scripture, this is the common understanding of how a person gets “saved”. So, when you bring up the issue of works, for the protestant, it has no bearing or relationship with works. Protestants see the obedience as part of a separate event or process commonly referrred to as “sanctification”. Catholics don’t separate the two, but Protestants, if they have any belief at all in the obedience teachings, consider obedience and works in Christ Jesus to be part of sanctification, and only a reflection that one is saved, rather than an integral part of that salvation, which has already occured.An OSAS christian (one who believes salvation cannot be lost) will usually say that keeping the commandments IS important, but is not part of salvation.I offer this as an ex-protestant.I think it has already been made clear that Protestants reject the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is part of their definition as “protestant”. They think the CC is heretical, and came off the rails somewhere early on, even before the reformation.In order to qualify to be a heretic, one must first understand and believe the truth, then choose to leave it. Therefore, the application of this question with regard to Christ is irrelevant, since he is the author of the teaching.

                                      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eiissshh

No, no, no Guan, I believe you are far off the rails here, referring principally, as you do, to the evangelicals. I have posted earlier (two or three before yours) what I understand to be the balance between protestant (from both a historical and religious point of view) and Catholic belief on works and salvation.

Please can you read that before you go further down your road which is not convincing or, in parts correct. Remember that I am crouched in the crevice between being a Baptist for life, and a Catholic for the rest of my life - I see both sides perhaps and am making a choice. Before that, I can claim to make relatively objective statements of fact.

Blessings as ever, C

 

[guanophore]

I do not have the right to deny them that by claiming that I have the only Absolute Truth through Christ.

“12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.” Phil 3:12-16

Paul writes about laying hold of that which has laid hold of him. This is the right response to grace. It must meet with faith in the hearer, or it falls upon rocky ground.

I think that, if He who is Absolute Truth has laid hold of you, you in your turn can lay hold of Him. You can claim this Truth for yourself. Inasmuch as each one must do this on their own, it is not proper for you to go about beheading those who do not believe as you do (I just watched a documentary on the inquisition). Having an assurance of what you believe to be truth belongs to you, and you to Him, is not “denying” them in any way.

five years is the maximum that an organisation can operate with any degree of policy coherence, and that after that, it changes. 2000 years of scholarship, practice, and schisms have meant many 'reviews' of the interpretation of doctrine and dogma by the Magisterium, and latterly by Vatican II.

There have been about that many changes in discipline and practice. This research is a great testimony to the fact that the Holy Spirit has guided and preserved the church. It is not a human organization, but one born of God, and preserved by God.

Another review is like sooner rather than later. Any great religion adapts or dies. I am not meaning huge adaptations. I am not meaning that I am a roaring relativist. But we do see differences of interpretation among Catholics on this forum; we do see major differences in focus and priorities between JP II and Benedict which will have ramifications for belief.

Adaptation (the application of doctrine) is different from age to age. The apostles could never have conceived (no pun intended) of widespread contraception and abortion, for example. But the basic doctrine about the primacy and value of human life has been taught consistently.

Catholics are not the only ones who know what it means to be a Christian: one could argue moral non-Christians know and are loved of Christ.

This is true. As it is also true that some claiming to be Catholic are so immoral as to appear to be sons of the devil!

I did say that at the end of the day it is the individual - however well educated or not, however intelligent or not, however spiritual or not, however committed or not, whether cradled or converted - who will define the truth he or she follows. That is inevitable.

While I agree that the practice of faith is the responsibility of the individual, I cannot agree that the individual must be responsible for defining the truth. The individual can join oneself into truth that has already been defined. The is what the apostle Paul writes about when he speaks of Gentiles being grafted into God’s chosen people. God has already revealed Himself. Now it is the duty of a man to recognize and live by the truth that has been revealed. It is God who defines, and man who abides (or refuses).

(and there are conflicting statements in the Bible),

I assert that there are no contradictory statements in the bible, but only complimentary ones. If they appear contradictory, it is our understanding that is lacking.

I would not agree that works done without Jesus are for one self-glory: I am married to the most moral man I know, but he has renounced his Christian fellowship. At the same time, his Methodist background has helped me hugely in my spiritual quest. He is one of the moral non-Christians we must take time to look at more closely.

Renunciation of Christian fellowship does not necessarily mean renuciation of Christ, or the truth of 'Christ revealed in a person’s heart. It is not possible to be more apart from divine revelation, whether a person recognizes that or not. But this too is another thread.

 

[mikeledes]

Im with you on this Kaycee:thumbsup: I should be clear-I mean on your biblical beliefs

This is an example of my husband I am praying for his salvation. There is still hope as long as he is alive. I pray for God not to take him until he is saved.

This response is for you and kaycee. That article does not prove anything and the fact that there is need for two contradictory explanations - one that says it refers to unbbelievrs and the other one that says it refers to Christians - already makes it suspect.

The second explanation says the following regarding verse 6:

According to this interpretation, the key word in the passage is if (verse 6). The writer of Hebrews is setting up a hypothetical statement: “IF a Christian were to fall away . . .” The point being made is that it would be impossible (IF a Christian falls away) to renew salvation. That’s because Christ died once for sin (Hebrews 9:28), and if His sacrifice is insufficient, then there’s no hope at all

.

Now here is the text in the New American Standard BIble, a respected and widely used Protestat version:

**4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. **

Unfortunately, for this interpretation, the key word “if” does not appear in verse 6 according to the NASB. Secondly, even if the word “if” appeared, that does not automatically make the statement purely hypothetical/theoretical. The word “if” can also indicate the possibility of something actually occuring. If a mother tells her child “If you do not pass the math test, you will not play video games for three months”, does that mean that the child can never fail the test? Does this mean she is purely speaking theoretically, knowing that her child will never fail the test? Obviously not! So why must we assume that Hebrews 6 is only speaking theoretically? Is it because we are seeing it through the lenses of OSAS and are thus forced to reconcile this passage with that doctrine, just as a Jehovah Witness sees John 20:28 through JW lenses and thus is forced to reconcile it with their denial of Jesus’s divinty?

And yet, the first explanation accepts the “if” of verse 6 as something that actually can occur!

Finally, this interpretation sees the “falling away” (Hebrews 6:6) as a reference to those who have tasted the truth but, not having come all the way to faith, fall away from even the revelation they have been given. The tasting of truth is not enough to keep them from falling away from it. They must come all the way to Christ in complete repentance and faith; otherwise, they in effect re-crucify Christ and treat Him contemptuously. Those who sin against Christ in such a way have no hope of restoration or forgiveness because they reject Him with full knowledge and conscious experience. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies. It is impossible to renew such to repentance.

This interpretation talks about “restoration” and “renew such to repentance (highlighted in red).” Well, if there was never genuine repentance to begin with, how can you “renew” or “restore?” Secondly, as the second interpretation establishes, “partakers of the Holy Spirit” can only refer to genuine Christians. So this interpretation contradicts the plain words of the text.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

YES, we have free will to do that whatever is within the realm of our nature as sinners.

As guano already pointed out you have agreed that sin separates us from God. That our sins grieves God.

Can a faithful person fall from grace of their own doing (sin)? Can God see the intent of a faithful person to attempt to sin no more when the person askes for and is grant forgiveness? Can God’s grace be reinstated on the faithful person. Is that within God’s power?

 

[nerfherder]

"12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

I think that, if He who is Absolute Truth has laid hold of you, you in your turn can lay hold of Him. You can claim this Truth for yourself. Inasmuch as each one must do this on their own, it is not proper for you to go about beheading those who do not believe as you do (I just watched a documentary on the inquisition). Having an assurance of what you believe to be truth belongs to you, and you to Him, is not “denying” them in any way.

For those who accept Christ as Absolute Truth, this cannot be denied them. For me however, there is a quid pro quo: that ‘it is not proper to go about beheading those who do not believe as I do’ (Torquemada?) For me, my truth is His truth, and His, mine. But Absolute Truth is a matter that requires long and deep thought. I am unsure as to whether, in our multiverse, any such thing exists. We cannot know. More thinking.

There have been about that many changes in discipline and practice. This research is a great testimony to the fact that the Holy Spirit has guided and preserved the church. It is not a human organization, but one born of God, and preserved by God.

Why do so many on this Forum claim there have been no changes, not even one, in Church doctrine, dogma, ritual and practice?

Adaptation (the application of doctrine) is different from age to age. The apostles could never have conceived (no pun intended) of widespread contraception and abortion, for example. But the basic doctrine about the primacy and value of human life has been taught consistently.

Absolutely, and one could add innumerable other core doctrines that have held consistent - and which constitute the profound strength of CC.

While I agree that the practice of faith is the responsibility of the individual, I cannot agree that the individual must be responsible for defining the truth. The individual can join oneself into truth that has already been defined. The is what the apostle Paul writes about when he speaks of Gentiles being grafted into God’s chosen people. God has already revealed Himself. Now it is the duty of a man to recognize and live by the truth that has been revealed. It is God who defines, and man who abides (or refuses).

There is Absolute Truth (perhaps); there is Truth (a perceived commonly-held value among a community of people); there is truth (understood for the most part by one or two individuals, which may or may not involve Truth or Absolute Truth). What I believe about Truth or Absolute Truth is only my truth because it is not omni-comprehensive (to coin a phrase): I can only understand that part of it which I can understand and grasp and follow and practice. Mine is inevitably different from yours. Mental landscapes, different truths, but yes, all drawn (we trust) from the Truth (or the Absolute Truth).

I assert that there are no contradictory statements in the bible, but only complimentary ones. If they appear contradictory, it is our understanding that is lacking.

Statements in conflict are not necessarily statements which are contradictory. If they are in conflict, they may or may not turn out to be contradictory. We are still in the process - quite clearly as this Forum demonstrates - of knowing. It may be we find some when our brains are better evolved for understanding.

Renunciation of Christian fellowship does not necessarily mean renuciation of Christ, or the truth of ‘Christ revealed in a person’s heart’. It is not possible to be more apart from divine revelation, whether a person recognizes that or not. But this too is another thread. Indeed. We are all chosen by God when we are born. ‘No man cometh unto the Father but by me’ is a problem for me here, but I am certain that this is a God of Love.

Blessings, C

 

[mikeledes]

Continuation of previous post:

Now if we look at other verses in Hebrews, they clearly discuss the possibility of genuine Christians falling away:

**Hebrews 2:1-3

1For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.
2For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,
3How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, **

Here, the inspired author is clearly telling Christians what** to do **in order to avoid drfting away from the word and then he says that how “will WE escape if we neglect so great a salvation.” If drifting away were not possible, then this warning would not necessary. And besides, if OSAS is true, we don’t have to do anything to prevent us from drifting away and receiving a just penalty.

Hebrews 4:11

11Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

Diligence involves effort. And why should we be diligent? “So that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.” If we were eternally secure the moment we genuinely believed, than diligence to enter God’s rest would be unnecessary.

Hebrews 10:26-29

**26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? **

Again, note the “we” (the inspired author includes himself) and the fact that the person in question has been sanctified by the blood of Christ.

Hebrews 13:25

**25See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. **

Why warn Christians about turning away if it is not possible to turn away and not escape? Note the use of the word “we” again.

The message of Hebrews is consistent and its a message that contradicts OSAS.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Galatians 6:7-9

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. **

1 Timothy 6:18-19

18Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,
19storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.

John 5:28-29

**28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. **

Matthew 25:34-36, 46

**34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. **

WHY?

** 35’FOR I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." **

Romans 2:6-7

**6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; **

John 8:51 (NASB)

**51"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death." **

1 John 2:17 (NASB)

**17The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. **

Revelation 2:26

**26’He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; **

2 Peter 1:5-11

5Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
6and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
7and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true (X)knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
10Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
11FOR IN THIS WAY the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

And yet these verses still stand. Paul may have been more detailed in his teachings on salvation, but he did not override, change, or invalidate the statements Jesus made on salvation. The above verses from some of his epistles prove that. I would like to add one more verse:

Revelation 2:10

…Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Bishopite]

I am moving between Canadian Baptist and Catholic: please clarify which truth we Catholics are defending: I thought I read clearly it was faith + works. Sorry if I am being obtuse or naïve.

I’m not sure what you mean that you are moving between Canadian Baptist and Catholic.

Your last post sounded as though you were feeding me the relativistic argument…that we just need to find common ground and that’s all that matters, so that why I responded that way I did. It is important that we share common ground, however the Catholic church is often accused of “works salvation” which is a complete fabrication; one only needs to read canon 20 of the council of Orange (529) to find out who guarded against the pelagians…
"CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it."

I’ve just come from Mass and yes, those are the words.

As I have written before, there is truth and there is truth. I am very aware that there are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others who have their truths, perhaps what they call their Absolute Truth. I do not have the right to deny them that by claiming that I have the only Absolute Truth through Christ.

 

[mikeledes]

Final salvation is the inheritance of every Christian, but God can disinherit those that do not fulfill the condtions He has established, a faith that perseveres in working through love.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Bishopite]

There is a mangement theory that states that five years is the maximum that an organisation can operate with any degree of policy coherence, and that after that, it changes. 2000 years of scholarship, practice, and schisms have meant many ‘reviews’ of the interpretation of doctrine and dogma by the Magisterium, and latterly by Vatican II. Another review is like sooner rather than later. Any great religion adapts or dies. I am not meaning huge adaptations. I am not meaning that I am a roaring relativist. But we do see differences of interpretation among Catholics on this forum; we do see major differences in focus and priorities between JP II and Benedict which will have ramifications for belief.

First of all, you mentioned the Catholic church being a “denomination” which it is not. Secondly, the Catholic church is NOT a business it is the body of Christ and His church and the church established by Christ Jesus.
Can you give me an example of a changed dogmatic teaching of the Catholic church?

I think what you are missing what the church teaches. Speculative theology is permitted within certain perameters; for example, I am not free to say contraception is acceptable, nor abortion. These two are absolute dogmatic teachings. I can’t say that works done under Gods grace aren’t required for salvation and as you affirmed it is faith + works done after faith under God’s grace. And grace precedes faith, all good we do comes from God alone, yet we still cooperate since we aren’t automatons (robots) and have free will.

I agree with you absolutely: assuming that you are scholarly, and have at your fingertips the correct interpretations issued by Vatican/Magisterium. Remember we are lay folk.

Ha, I’m sorry for laughing but I’m NO scholar, just a regular lay person and believe me there a plethora of persons more erudite on this forum than I.

Catholics are not the only ones who know what it means to be a Christian: one could argue moral non-Christians know and are loved of Christ. One reason for my joining the Catholic Church is because I believe it to be the repository of faith (doctrinal interpretations, scholarship, manuscripts and books etc etc) for Christendom. No other Christian denomination has this capacity. I am a historian: much of the truth of Christ’s mission would have been lost without the Catholic Church.

I agree that their are non-Catholic Christians and that non-Christians are loved by Christ, He loves everyone, however, the closer one gets to heaven the easier it is to be saved; the more truth one has and follows both of faith and morals, the greater chance at being saved.

I did not say sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy. I did say that at the end of the day it is the individual - however well educated or not, however intelligent or not, however spiritual or not, however committed or not, whether cradled or converted - who will define the truth he or she follows. That is inevitable. At mass this morning, one was aware of the many mental landscapes among our community.

I see. I DID say that sola scriptura is a blue print for anarchy. Being educated about God word in scripture, history and being able to reason through critical thinking concepts does help, but objectively looking at the evidence of Catholicism jusxtaposing it with Protestantism, one wonders how someone can do so without seeing the plethora of evidence for the Catholic faith. To many on this forum simply cite half or mistruths that they have been taught about the Catholic church and it is this that I’m going to defend.

Yes, I think you have set out the reasoning well. As I understand CCC and the Bible taken together (and there are conflicting statements in the Bible),

Like?

we cannot be saved without faith; when we have faith, the works we do, we do for God/Christ (No man cometh unto the Father but by me etc). I would not agree that works done without Jesus are for one self-glory:

Yes, John 14:6. Perhaps reading through Mt 25:41-46 may help?

I am married to the most moral man I know, but he has renounced his Christian fellowship. At the same time, his Methodist background has helped me hugely in my spiritual quest. He is one of the moral non-Christians we must take time to look at more closely.

I agree that there are many non-Catholic Christians who live much more moral lives than do many Catholics, but that doesn’t deny the truth of the teaching of Catholicism. Being a moral person doesn’t get one to heaven (Rom 3:23) but it IS a good thing that you have such a moral husband; to many people today have spouses that could care less about morality.

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.
Blessings

And also with you.

 

[down_under]

Why is it my posts go unanswered. It seems the protestants here only want to answer people in there click. Or maybe they just have there favorite catholics to pick on. I made a perfictly logical question. Nothing inflamatory.

You may claim to find it in the bible. And you have your versus to back it up I see. You however cannot find it in history.
No one found it in the bible for the first 1500 years. No one who knew christ found it in there bibles. Oh yea thats right they did not have bibles. Well no one who was dicipled by the diciples found it in there bibiles. oh yea the did not have a bible either. well no one in the first 1500 years bothered to mention it to us. So how can you think you have got it right after all this time if we know that the apostles did not teach this, EVER. History bears this out.

See I was looking for an answer there. No responce. Either I am being ignored or they just dont have any answer to this question. Must be pretty frustating to think you have all the answers right up until someone asks you a question about basic church history.

 

[down_under]

Of course all of this bantering back in forth really misses the point. Every place in the bible some 200 I should think where jesus says what it is going to take to get you to heaven (he talks about you being judged) He always talks about what you have done. People in the end will be judged on what they have done with what they were given.

I make up in my body for what is lacking in christs suffering.

Why would paul say this? This is insane Lacking. Christs suffering is perfect. Then what is lacking. If the suffering itself is perfect (which it was) then what does paul have to add that christ did not do on his own. Why does paul have to do anything if it is all on christ now.
A difficult verse indeed if you dont believe you have to do anything to get into heaven. just believe in Christ and that is it right. Paul did not think so. You can throw all the scripture at it that you want that verse will come back to haunt you every time.

Paul had to participate in christs sufferings. As the parabales point out it is not good enough to be given Grace and do nothing with it. You cant bury it in the ground for fear it will be lost or because you are worried what your friends will think. you are required to carry it forward to be a light to the world to do something already. To participate in some small way in Christ’s salvific mission.
I will not wait for a resopnce. I’d hate to be dissipointed.

 

[nerfherder]

Why is it my posts go unanswered. It seems the protestants here only want to answer people in there click. Or maybe they just have there favorite catholics to pick on. I made a perfictly logical question. Nothing inflamatory.

You may claim to find it in the bible. And you have your versus to back it up I see. You however cannot find it in history.
No one found it in the bible for the first 1500 years. No one who knew christ found it in there bibles. Oh yea thats right they did not have bibles. Well no one who was dicipled by the diciples found it in there bibiles. oh yea the did not have a bible either. well no one in the first 1500 years bothered to mention it to us. So how can you think you have got it right after all this time if we know that the apostles did not teach this, EVER. History bears this out.

See I was looking for an answer there. No responce. Either I am being ignored or they just dont have any answer to this question. Must be pretty frustating to think you have all the answers right up until someone asks you a question about basic church history.

Remind me - what is your question? I can’t say I understand the question from this post, but perhaps you put it in an earlier post.

If it’s about the Bible, the contents of the Bible were sorted out at the Council of Nicaea in about 325CE. So there was an agreed Bible at that point.

Hope this helps,

Blessings

 

[nerfherder]

Of course all of this bantering back in forth really misses the point. Every place in the bible some 200 I should think where jesus says what it is going to take to get you to heaven (he talks about you being judged) He always talks about what you have done. People in the end will be judged on what they have done with what they were given.
I make up in my body for what is lacking in christs suffering.Why would paul say this? This is insane Lacking. Christs suffering is perfect. Then what is lacking. If the suffering itself is perfect (which it was) then what does paul have to add that christ did not do on his own. Why does paul have to do anything if it is all on christ now. A difficult verse indeed if you dont believe you have to do anything to get into heaven. just believe in Christ and that is it right. Paul did not think so. You can throw all the scripture at it that you want that verse will come back to haunt you every time.Paul had to participate in christs sufferings. As the parabales point out it is not good enough to be given Grace and do nothing with it. You cant bury it in the ground for fear it will be lost or because you are worried what your friends will think. you are required to carry it forward to be a light to the world to do something already. To participate in some small way in Christ’s salvific mission.
I will not wait for a resopnce. I’d hate to be dissipointed.

Sorry, I think some of us had our heads in our own arguments, and perhaps did not look up to see other’s questions. I am not sure I am the right person to answer - being between protestantism and Catholicism at the moment, but I can try to give a brief answer and then stand corrected.

I agree with you completely, as I wrote above, that for both Catholics and protestants, faith + works is required for salvation. It is continually emphasised that works are not enough: you have to have faith first (that is, No man cometh unto the Father but by me). Works without faith don’t count, for the most part. God works through us, and by our good works we are known as Christians who follow the example of our Lord in his compassion and mercy for others. Yes God chooses us as His children, but we must make a response not just of faith and love, but of undertaking for Him and in His name.

The issue of completing Christ’s suffering is a tough one, and I am not sure that I have got a good handle on it, but it is a fascinating concept. What Paul said, I think, for all of us, is that Christ still suffers as he sees us in sin or suffering. While he died for our salvation, and was resurrected as a guarantee of our salvation, he continues to suffer as he sees us suffer. [This is where I get into trouble because I don’t understand yet why he has to suffer further, why his suffering has to be ‘completed’. But that is what we understand.] Essentially I believe it means that we can rely on his continuing to carry our suffering for us. [Clarification someone please.]

You postulate that some people who believe in Christ dying for our salvation think that ‘you don’t have to do anything to get into heaven’. Well I think we all believe that we have to have faith first - that he is the Christ, the Messiah, who died for our sins, and recurrected as a guarantee of our salvation. I wrote a post above, quite a long one, that indicates from what I know from both the Catholic side and the protestant side, that mainline belief is that we are required as Christians not just to believe, to have faith, but also to follow Christ’s example throughout his mission, in caring for others, healing, teaching, loving, working with and for others to bring comfort. That means works + faith are emphasised by Catholics and protestants. Not all of them, but by far the largest majority. (I will not deal with the issue of predestination here - I have noted Weber’s insights above, and you can Google the rest.)

As you have said, we can think of ourselves, like him, as a light to the world - however small and feeble our light is, it is nevertheless shining for him as a sign of our belief.

I hope this helps. And I hope others will add their insights on completing Christ’s suffering which I have also asked about several times.

And CONGRATS on Jasslyn! :dancing: