What is works salvation and why will it send people to hell?

[CentralFLJames]

When I was a neophyte member to this forum, I would chomp at the bait to your question. That experience taught me that arguing theology on a Roman Catholic forum is a waste of time.

Receiving questions like you have asked is a code. The code is translated into saying, ‘I have my theology and the bible doesn’t matter’. Regretfully, there is no room for dialog with that set of belief system.

Be advise that any post you submit that doesn’t take Scripture out of context (i. e. John 15:15) will be met with a finger twitching press of the Page Down key on my keyboard.

Are you admitting here that in spite of all your experience you still have some sort of irrational need to continue to linger and waste time arguing your own theology with Catholics on a Catholic website? Or are you admitting you are trying to convert Catholics to your own personal theology? Do you know what they say about the minds of people who repeat the same things over and over while expecting different outcomes? And you want us to think you have credibility to teach us?

The only meritable lesson I see you offering here is one of perseverance in works of faith; though its sort of a self defeating sort of work since you keep beating your head against the immovable wall of infallible Church Teaching. But still the faith and the perseverance and work while wrong headed and misdirected still ironically teaches us a valid principal. I’ll pray that you eventually manage to beat the truth into your head before you irreparably damage yourself.

But I might suggest that assuming a dubious authority and a conspicuous thumbs-up/thumbs-down sort of attitude in an arena of mostly Catholic Christians probably makes you look more like Caesar than it does a Christian. Most Catholics here are veterans and will probably take all the thumb motion as a hitchhiker making desperate pleas for assistance rather than as a formidable authority who gives us the opportunity to be martyred for our faith.

James

 

[sandusky]

I would recommend a book by Dr. Norman Giesler who is a popular Evangelical Protestant theologian and a very good one. Dr. Geisler is the co-author with Ralph MacKenzie of a book entitled Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, which I would recommend to Protestants as helpful. He is one of the first non-Lutheran Christian theologians to embrace the Lutheran-Catholic accord and has some interesting points to make.

1. Our differences come at fundamental turns in theological development that occurred after the first five Ecumenical Councils. Perhaps we should bear this in mind as we explore each other’s differences and debate one another. Remember, if this were the sixth century, both views would likely be held to be within the pale of orthodoxy.
2. The differences between Protestants and Catholics are in the same order. We share common beliefs in Sacred Scripture, and we each even follow “traditions”. Within each tradition, the picture looks very obviously one way. Both religious expressions are true, but the human person is capable of living only one tradition at a time. It is not really possible to look at the picture and see both images simultaneously. Yet, both points of view are true within their own framework.
3. The Protestant articulation of soteriology (theology of justification) is as follows: We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from good works.
4. Most Protestants say we are saved by a faith that produces works, but the works themselves do not save us and are not necessary. However, such works have no merit to the person.
5. Let’s look again at how Hank Hanegraaff presents the Catholic position: We are saved by grace alone through faith infused works.
6. With the Protestants, Catholics believe that salvation is by grace alone, such that all people who will be saved are saved by Christ, and we can rightly say that God is the initiator of salvation and the one who brings the work to completion. Salvation is a free gift and we do not earn it through our works.
7. As long as you are alive on earth, God is still working out your own salvation with you. There is God’s initiation and then there is the response of the human person. This is not a one time deal, but an ongoing relationship made possible by what Jesus did on the cross.
8. PROTESTANT VIEW: Rom 5:12 says that all people are sinners. Protestants believe that the works of humanity are totally depraved, and even good works are performed with impure motives. We are sinners to the core. Protestants believe that the world is deeply effected by sin, and salvation occurs solus Chistri, or in Christ alone. Protestants are Christo-monic.
9. CATHOLIC VIEW: Catholics believe in original sin as well as Protestants. However, Catholics focus much more on the Biblical language of humanity as the image of God (Gen 1:26). Even after the fall, Catholics believe that some inherent goodness adheres to the human soul. Rather than dung covered in snow, Original sin affects everyone, but not quite to the depth of depravity described by Protestants. Catholics believe the world is effected by sin, but basically good. Rather than being Christo-monic, Catholics are Christo-centric.

Dr. Geisler ends his book with a strong suggestion to the Evangelical Churches that they begin to dialogue not on the merits of works, but on an attempt to see both the Saviour and humanity in a different light, maybe both Christo-monic and Christo-centric. What is interesting about the way that he does theology is that he recognizes that Catholicism and Protestantism are valid forms of Christianity and are both rooted in traditions. So, the challenge that he throws on the table is to find the links between the two traditions, rather than the differences. Stop drawing lines in the sand and start trying to understand each other.

I would recommend Roman Catholicism Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, as well.

 

[guanophore]

It still seems to me that your belief is that works are necessary, contributory, and meritorious in salvation, and that squares with my definition of works salvation:

In Lk 18:10-14, who was justified? The man who gave credit to God for his person, and his works? Or, the one who relied on grace alone, faith alone, in God alone?
​

sandusky:

works salvation is the idea that works are ***necessary for salvation; that is, that the sacrifice of Christ, ***in and of itself, without human works, saves no one. If one asserts that Christ’s work is dependent upon the actions of men, and that His sacrifice has merely made a way of salvation available that must include human works for the sacrifice to be effective, that is “works-salvation.” God’s grace and mercy may be espoused in the teaching as well, however, it is stil called “works-salvation.” ******

I think the problem is with your definition, and not the theology. Now where does the scripture or Church indicate that the sacrifice of Christ, in and of itself, saves anyone!

If that were true, Judas, Satan, and all His minions would be saved, since God wants all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. However, we know this is not the case, and that, though God wants all to be saved, there are some that will reject the purpose of God for themselves. These people who reject grace are not saved. Their failure to accept the sacrifice of christ on their behalf does not in any way take away from it’s total efficacy. Just like the efficacy of the blood on the doors at Passover. If the blood was not applied, the people in the house were not saved.

 

[JReducation]

Relax, JR; the way you worded your post gives the impression, to me anyway, that the seven points of the various protestant denoms are different from the agreement of the CC with the Lutherans; are the two different?

This is a valid question derserving of a response. What I did was to synthesize the agreement and the posiitions that other Christians have brought to the table in support of the agreement. That’s why I named several Christian theologians and why I recommend further reading. You will find that honest theologians are not trying to sacrifice doctrine for unity. On the contrary, Christians are trying to find unity in doctrine. I call it using reason informed by faith.

Simple; there are various “discrediting” movements afoot in Christianity; they attempt either to discredit such things as the reformation, the authenticity of Scripture, Christ, God, Paul, and other things Christian; they will, of course, appeal to those Catholics who worship unity to the detriment of doctrine, IMO.

There have always been and will be these kinds of movements. This should not make us so hypervigilant that we begin to see attacks where none exist. It is true that there are Christians, not just Catholic Christians, who would love to see everyone singing Kumbaya around the campfire and to heck with doctrine. In my mind, this is a very naive approach to reunification. The real approach to reunifiction of the Christian Church is to understand how each side reaches its conclusions and build on what we have in common.

Probably not, JR; I’m one of those people who believes that doctrine is more important than unity, as unity is already present in Christ’s true church; as Paul says, there is only one church (Eph 4:4-5), and that church will not compromise doctrine for unity—if it does, it proves itself false (cf 1 Cor 11:18ff).

If you choose not to read the document and what other Christian theologians have to say about it, no one can force you to do so. But you must also be aware of the fact that you are closing yourself off to discovering that there is more that unites Christians than that which separates us. You may also be closing yourself off to the movement of the Holy Spirit in our time.

I realize that none of these people are perfect or omniscient. But they are grounded in faith and trying to do the best they can to understand the truths that have been revealed to us. I for one would like to be in on that journey. But that’s a choice that you have to make.

In a world where we have so many resources that shed light on the scripture and Christian tradition, it is a shame to ignore them. One may end up at a dead end or may find something that our anscestors missed. There is nothing to lose.

Five hundred years ago our Christian anscestors didn’t have access to many of the historical, linguistic, archeological and anthroplogical tools that we have today. These tools, enlightened by faith can clarify many questions raised in the past. Why not use them?

In approaching faith, we have to be humble and admit that there are always new things to be learned. To hang on to ideas that may need to be reveiwed is a diservice to ourselves. I believe this is where all of us have to be careful, because this is where we cross the line from faith to pride, not a line that we want to cross.

God bless

JR

 

[guanophore]

Well stated. Just to clarify, to be crucified with Christ doesn’t take place one night when a believer ‘accepted Christ and got saved’ or preformed an empty ritual. It is when the believer crucifies self that he\she comes alive in Christ. That happens daily.

Luke 9:23

And (Jesus) said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

What is the 'empty ritual" of which you speak?

 

[guanophore]

The all mankind is the few believers that live, for instance, in India or Indiana, USA. It is God’s extended family outside of the Jews of the Hebrew Bible. That Family has an exact number. All mankind does not mean every man, woman, child that ever existed.

The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.

That doctrine isn’t taught in the Bible.

You are right, the Bible doesn’t teach. The Bible records the very Words of God. People teach,and people apparently have taught error in the matter of justification.

So, are you saying that God predestines some people to perdition, and some to glory, and that people have no choice?

Are you saying that people are not free to reject God’s purpose for themselves?

God’s grace is not indoor plumbing.
With respects to your SIM card analogy . .

If Jesus was your mobile phone operator, He would command you to establish a relationship with His service; your monthly rental would become daily. You may think you have the power to ‘switching off’ your service, but He will come to your door and beat you into continuing.

Perhaps not, but God created the indoor plumbing that makes up human beings, and God created us in His image and likeness, which means we have free will, and can resist His grace and purpose for ourselves.

Yours is a very distorted view of God, if you think that he wants to “beat” people into continuing with Him. This is not love at all. Do you beat your loved ones into submission!

 

[guanophore]

arguing theology on a Roman Catholic forum is a waste of time.

Why are you here, then?

 

[tabcom]

Yours is a very distorted view of God, if you think that he wants to “beat” people into continuing with Him. This is not love at all.

Hebrews 12:6
FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES, AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."

Romans 10:17 Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God

This word hear is the word

* Akouo – to understand and obey

The New Testament word for “obey” is the word hupakouo. It comes from hupo meaning under and akouo meaning to hear under as a subordinate – “to hear is to obey”. Faith comes about by the scourge or the rod.

The Old Testament Hebrew word for “hear”, “hearken”, and obey is the same word:

* Shama – to hear intelligently, attention, intelligence, consent, be content (with God’s decision for our life), "be obedient" understand or witness (which is the word martus in the

Greek – (martus comes from martyr). Faith is to martyr oneself by proclaiming truth. Faith is to martyr oneself by the daily cross in order that we obey God. Predestination is conforming and obeying God.

Death to self is faith that we are predestined unto. Faith is death to self (death to the flesh by the daily cross) so that the new birth (born again – in opposition to the flesh) shall take over (instead of or in the place of the old man). Since mans only desire is to fulfill the flesh and he is unable by his total sinful nature (Rom. 3:10-12, Psalms 39:5) to make himself alive (zoopoieo – quicken) God had to choose himself a family and birth them, otherwise, he would never have a family. He chooses us, births us according to his will, then when we come to a realization that we are his we must obey him (which is faith). Like faith, the gospel and truth, predestination is about obedience. He causes this obedience by the scourge, chastisement or the rod. This obedience (accountability/ responsibility) is what predestination is all about. The “scourge” causes us to do what he has “predestined” us unto. It causes us to do what we cannot bring ourselves to do. “Predestination” is about obedience to the word of God and living inside the “border or boundaries” which he hath set down for us. This leads us into the word predestinate (not a general opinion, but rather an exact definition).

The word love is Agapao. It doesn’t mean to have affection for.
The Biblical definition of love/agape is found in II John 6 “this is love (agape) that we walk after his commandments”.

 

[tabcom]

In context . . .

Hebrews 12:6-10

FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.

 

[tabcom]

Do you beat your loved ones into submission!

My son – due date just a couple weeks away – will get to know the meaning of Proverbs 13:24 by the time he is an adult.

Pr 13:24 -
He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

 

[guanophore]

; they will, of course, appeal to those Catholics who worship unity to the detriment of doctrine, IMO.

Probably not, JR; I’m one of those people who believes that doctrine is more important than unity, as unity is already present in Christ’s true church; as Paul says, there is only one church (Eph 4:4-5), and that church will not compromise doctrine for unity—if it does, it proves itself false (cf 1 Cor 11:18ff).

This doesn’t make any sense to me. The unity is BASED on the doctrine. Those who accept the doctrine are in unity, and those that do not, are not in unity. The two cannot be separated.

I do agreee that there is unity present in Christ’s true church, though, and that there is only one church.

 

[guanophore]

My son – due date just a couple weeks away – will get to know the meaning of Proverbs 13:24 by the time he is an adult.

Pr 13:24 -
He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Yes, but you did not use “beating” in the context of a Father loving His son. You used it as an illustration of what God would do if one refused the “cell phone service”. Those who refuse grace are not counted as sons, and God would not "discipline"them into submission.

 

[JReducation]

I’m just an observer here. But it seems that everyone here is talking cross purposes. I don’t see any attempt to practice the most fundamental commandment, “Do to others as you would have them do to you. For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?” (Lk 6; 31-32)

Everyone here claims to have been saved by faith; however “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? Faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2; 14, 17).

Where are the works of love in this thread? “Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous., it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered . . . So faith, hope and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1Cor 12; 4-3, 13)

As far as works and faith are concerned, there is a narrow interpretation being given to Galatians. If we read the entire letter Pau is very clear that Salvation comes through faith and not by works of the law. The law that he is referring to are the accidentals that were added to Judaism in order to maintain a unified nation. He also makes reference to the faith of Abraham and how Abraham responded to the covenant. If we study Abraham in the OT, we find that he did perform the works that the Lord asked him, just like Moses and David and the prophets.

Common sense dictates that salvation is not going to come from observance of laws that had a sociological purpose, to keep Israel united and to protect it from contamination by pagan cultures. These were organizational laws. They were pragmatics, not divine law. The works under those laws served their purpose and are no longer necessary. Christ has entered into human history; Israel was sustained by the Law to fulfil its mission. Now the works of that law are no longer needed, because the mission has been fulfilled. However, the works of faith are not annulled by the early Church, as we see in John and Paul’s writings

Finally, let’s take one last look at Luke’s writings. “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. All who believed were together and had all things in common, they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to teach one’s need,” (Acts 2; 42, 44-45). What we see here is a community where faith and works of love are alive and well.

What I see in this thread is a shouting match with some people trying to force others into submission. This is not faith nor is it inviting to anyone who is not of the Christian faith and comes looking. I think everyone here has to examine their conscience and do some changing, if this dialogue is going to be enlightening.

For example, I’m a convert from Judaism to Catholicism. Had I run into a mess like this, I would have remained in the Jewish faith. I thank God that the Christians whom I encountered through my life were kind to each other and respectful toward me and my questions.

JR

 

[mdcpensive1]

The works are not just a show of our faith. God doesn’t need to see works to know if we have faith. Our faith must be alive and must produce works. That is why the apostle James makes the comparison of faith and works to that of the body and spirit. The body and spirit make up a living human being. Separated the body is dead. Likewise, faith and works are what justify. Faith, like the body without the spirit, is dead without the works. The works are necessary.

Thanks for your response. It seems like I have maybe stated something that needs clarification in my post. When I talked about works being shown, I mean the same as you do. Maybe I could have used a word that means “flows from” instead of “show” to better get the theology correct. I do know that because of sanctifying grace in us that our good works are actually the works of Christ in us.

I am also a fan of your posts and have learned much from them. I hope to be reading them in the future.

mdcpensive1

 

[Pax]

…
…
The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.

That doctrine isn’t taught in the Bible.

This is patently false.

Scripture says the following:

Acts 13:43
When the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Please note that Paul and Barnabas are urging the converts to “continue” in the grace of God. Obviously, they do not have to and are able to cease doing so.

Acts 7: 51
"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do.

Please note that in this verse Stephen tells the Jewish leaders that they are a stiff necked people opposing the Holy Spirit just as their ancestors used to do. People can and do resist God’s grace. God respects our free will…it is a gift he has given to us that makes us fully human.

 

[Pax]

Thanks for your response. It seems like I have maybe stated something that needs clarification in my post. When I talked about works being shown, I mean the same as you do. Maybe I could have used a word that means “flows from” instead of “show” to better get the theology correct. I do know that because of sanctifying grace in us that our good works are actually the works of Christ in us.

I am also a fan of your posts and have learned much from them. I hope to be reading them in the future.

mdcpensive1

Got it. And thanks an awful lot for the kind words.

 

[tabcom]

"Tabcom:

The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.

Please note that Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:43) are urging the converts to “continue” in the grace of God.

Please clarify, are you saying that continuing in the grace is the same as accepting the grace? The brevity of your previous post is unclear – hence, I have no comment.

Regarding Acts 7: 51, I respectfully disagree,

The greek word translated into ‘forever opposing’ is:
antipipto - from anti - anti and pipto ; to oppose or resist

Read in proper context Stephen was addressing Jews (Acts 6:9) that were in opposition to the teaching of Jesus. They never had the Holy Spirit.

What was Stephens reward for telling them that? They stoned him to death.

 

[emil2804]

The all mankind is the few believers that live, for instance, in India or Indiana, USA. It is God’s extended family outside of the Jews of the Hebrew Bible. That Family has an exact number. All mankind does not mean every man, woman, child that ever existed.

The Bible doesn’t teach that Grace is something you have freewill over in accepting.

What does scripture mean by “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. You and your families”? Whom does that exclude in your opinion? Is God racist or partial to some countries?

That doctrine isn’t taught in the Bible.

See above comment.

God’s grace is not indoor plumbing.

With respects to your SIM card analogy . .

If Jesus was your mobile phone operator, He would command you to establish a relationship with His service; your monthly rental would become daily. You may think you have the power to ‘switching off’ your service, but He will come to your door and beat you into continuing.

Thank you for pointing out something I didn’t know. So you mean Jesus is a guy who will force his will on me? So much for my notion that free will is God’s gift of love to man.
By the way your entire objection to my post can be summarized in the fact that I believe in man’s free will and you don’t. I believe that scripture supports free will too.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Please clarify, are you saying that continuing in the grace is the same as accepting the grace? The brevity of your previous post is unclear – hence, I have no comment.

Regarding Acts 7: 51, I respectfully disagree,

The greek word translated into ‘forever opposing’ is:
antipipto - from anti - anti and pipto ; to oppose or resist

Read in proper context Stephen was addressing Jews (Acts 6:9) that were in opposition to the teaching of Jesus. They never had the Holy Spirit.

What was Stephens reward for telling them that? They stoned him to death.

So God then must work through teachers and people must first be taught that they can’t oppose God’s grace before God can give them that grace?

Come on - give it up. This is infantile logic. You are interpreting everything in the way you want to believe under a spirit that is clearly “antipipto” anything Catholic Teaching. In so doing you end up making these kinds of ridiculous assertions.
**
I note that you completely ignored my request to explain why Mary had to consent to the Incarnation before she conceived Jesus.**

God does not bully us with His grace. A bullying sort of grace that does not require us to cooperate with God is completely foreign to everything we know about God’s character. Hospitality and responding to God was very important to the Jews. The lesson is clear and consistent all through history.

God did not knock down Lot’s door when He sent the angles to visit him in Sodom. Lot invited them in. It was only after Lot had established a relationship of hospitality and trust with the angels that the angels of the Lord compelled him to turn away from the destruction that God was to unleash as punishment on the evil city and spare Lot and his family.

God does not change His revealed character. God wants us to cooperate with His grace.

Matthew 7:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that aseeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

God does require perspiration as a sign of our conviction.

If Grace alone is sufficient why then must we pray? The answer is because God wants a bi-directional relationship not a soulless and mindless robot who spouts scripture back to Him every-time somone puts a penny in his slot and turns the crank.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

My son – due date just a couple weeks away – will get to know the meaning of Proverbs 13:24 by the time he is an adult.

Pr 13:24 -
He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.

Some here do to scripture with words and lack of understanding what other men could not do with a rod to abuse their dog.

Please tell me you don’t have a pit bull for a pet ? That would just complete the picture here.

James