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

[guanophore]

Thank you for your answers.
Within your answers explains the misunderstanding that we have.

Where as you view freewill in the context of making a choice, as americans, to participate (or not) in singing the ‘Star Spangled Banner’, I use freewill in the context of we had no choice at all as to the nation we were born into.

Can you see the difference?

I do. Let’s follow this analagy. Though we may not have any choice into which nationwe are born, we do have a choice to leave that Nation. One can seek citizenship in other country. One can renounce one’s citizenship in America. Or do we not have that much free will?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yes, it does mean that we have freewill to sing the song without looking at the sheet music.
PS, I thought the double negative was effective.

mdcpensive1

Perhaps more pointedly I note that we also have the freewill to renounce our citizenship as US Citizens, go to Canada or Mexico, sing the star spangled banner as exiles and still call ourselves “Americans”. But the election while landing us on the same continent puts us north or south of the ideal and brings not only our conviction and patriotism into question on the home-front but also our rationality and sense of direction.

It’s ironic that non-Catholic “Christians” essentially do the same thing by divorcing themselves from the true Catholic Church and walking away under a “protest” banner. How utterly odd behavior to take leave of one’s family and country in a protest of allegiance to the name and the ideals while retaining only the family name as an identity. It would complete the metaphor and the Justice for such estranged to eventually see the absurdity of it all, try to repatriate but be turned away as illegal immigrants for forgetting the tune and singing something that sounds more like “Dixie” .

But no doubt some other’s here are committed to enslave themselves to a faux patriotism and to a perverse ideal than they are committed to live with the blessings of true freedom. It all looks out of step with reason and sounds out of tune to me…

James

 

[tabcom]

First of all, the versions of the Bible I have seen use the term “chosen people” not race.

This statement in itself shows that God does has a specific people, as oppose to every man, woman child that ever lived.

The original Greek word that has been translated ‘people’ or ‘race’ in the interlinear Bible (from which all other English Bibles are based from) in 1 Peter 2:9 is the word genos (ghen’-os).

Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines it as:
“kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):–born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

It is the same word used in:
Acts 7:13

And at the second [time] Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.

Acts 7:19

The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

Acts 17:28

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17:29

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Rev 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.

Even if your translation uses race instead, it would be meant in a very broad sense and not in the anthropological sense.

I’ll agree with that. God’s family is spiritual in nature.

 

[tabcom]

Let’s follow this analagy. Though we may not have any choice into which nation we are born, we do have a choice to leave that Nation.

I hope my usage of Scripture doesn’t distract from the discussion, but I do feel it is relevent as a guidepost to staying on target.

God chose Jacob to be a member of His Nation before he was born. (Rom. 9:11-13)

One can seek citizenship in other country. One can renounce one’s citizenship in America. Or do we not have that much free will?

I want to ask you a question. When Jesus said to Simon Peter and Andrew “Follow Me” (Matt 4:19); did they have freewill to ‘renounce’ Him and remain fishermen at the Sea of Galilee?

 

[guanophore]

This statement in itself shows that God does has a specific people, as oppose to every man, woman child that ever lived.

The original Greek word that has been translated ‘people’ or ‘race’ in the interlinear Bible (from which all other English Bibles are based from) in 1 Peter 2:9 is the word genos (ghen’-os).

I am glad you are learning Greek, tabcom. I found that this greately improved my understanding of God’s word. However, you are in error about the English Bibles. They are not all “based from” the interlinear. This may be true about Protestant Bibles, but I don’t even think that is the case.

Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines it as:
“kin” (abstract or concrete, literal or figurative, individual or collective):–born, country(-man), diversity, generation, kind(-red), nation, offspring, stock.

Acts 17:28

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Acts 17:29

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Better be careful about these verses, tabcom. They are directed toward a mixed crowd of believers and unbelievers (mostly). By applying the concept of race in this context, the verses would support “human race” rather than the elect of God.

 

[guanophore]

I hope my usage of Scripture doesn’t distract from the discussion, but I do feel it is relevent as a guidepost to staying on target.

God chose Jacob to be a member of His Nation before he was born. (Rom. 9:11-13)
I want to ask you a question. When Jesus said to Simon Peter and Andrew “Follow Me” (Matt 4:19); did they have freewill to ‘renounce’ Him and remain fishermen at the Sea of Galilee?

There is no dispute that some are predestined completely. However, this type of predestination is not the case with all people. We know that some are called, and don’t respond. Some are purposed by God to follow, then refuse.

Yes, the Apostles had the free will to renounce HIm, and remain fishermen. In fact, Peter did renounce Jesus at His trial, and went back to fishing.

 

[tabcom]

Better be careful about these verses, tabcom.

Instead of trying to sidestep the point in question, why is it so hard for your to admit that 1 Peter 2:9 is about a particular people, not every man, woman, child that ever lived?

 

[tabcom]

Yes, the Apostles had the free will to renounce HIm, and remain fishermen.

Wrong answer.

The English word ‘follow’ in Matt 4:19 is from the Greek word
deute --dyoo’-teh

It is the imperative form of eimi (to go).

As a soon to be father, if I say to my son ‘Go to your room!’, my son has no freewill to refuse my imperative command.

Besides that, in the very next verse . .
Matt 4:20 At once (Peter and Andrew) left their nets and followed him.

 

[davidv]

Wrong answer.

The English word ‘follow’ in Matt 4:19 is from the Greek word
deute --dyoo’-teh

It is the imperative form of eimi (to go).

As a soon to be father, if I say to my son ‘Go to your room!’, my son has no freewill to refuse my imperative command.

Besides that, in the very next verse . .
Matt 4:20 At once (Peter and Andrew) left their nets and followed him.

Wrong answer

The world is full of example that “imperatives” don’t work the way you just described.

If you had a son like one of mine, no matter how severe a consequence I was willing to dish out, he would still freely disobey. And he accepted the consequences.

Just because the outcome of some choices are servere, many willfully disregard imperatives. They either ignor the consequences or accept that having it “their way” is worth it.

 

[tabcom]

The world is full of example that “imperatives” don’t work the way you just described… . . many willfully disregard imperatives.

The context of my example, is within the framework of what Jesus said and how Peter, Andrew, John, and James reacted, out of obedience, not by a freewill to choose.

Matt 4:20 -
At once (Peter and Andrew) left their nets and followed him.

Matt 4:22 -
Immediately (John and James) left the boat and their father, and followed Him.

 

[heisenburg]

This is an honest question, and, if it has been answered, simply point me to the right location and I will review it…

If we have no freewill in the matter when we are called, and in how we respond (ie works are a response, not a choice)

Then why are people who are otherwise very very good Christians, choosing to not do works at times. If they had no choice in the matter, they would do it…

Also, if it is impossible for someone to refuse the call, as well as its responses, then why is it a sin to NOT do what is right.

Wouldn’t this make no sense? How can I sin if I cannot refuse it? Why even say it is a sin if I can’t refuse it?

IN Christ

 

[CentralFLJames]

I want to ask you a question. When Jesus said to Simon Peter and Andrew “Follow Me” (Matt 4:19); did they have freewill to ‘renounce’ Him and remain fishermen at the Sea of Galilee?

Yes they had freewill not to follow. This was not a divine ORDER or COMMANDMENT that forced them to obey. They followed because they saw something that appealed to them. They saw a natural leader with charisma that appealed to all their hopes and dreams (The Jews were all actively looking for and expecting the Messiah at this time but there is no indication here that they yet know that consciously).

In fact, after Jesus died on the cross they chose to return to being fishermen and did not return to being apostles until after the resurrection.

Are you going to anwer my question about why Mary had to consent to the grace of God in the incarnation? This is the 3rd time I have asked you and you ignore the question.

BTW - your preoccupation with race in these dialogs does not resonate well with the universality (Catholicism) of Christian message.

James

 

[heisenburg]

Tab…

You brought up a verse that made me think, and I wanted your opinion…

Is the following not possible:

When Jesus Came upon them, he did sit and talk with them a while before asking them the join him…

From a literary point of view, does it matter what was said? do they bog down the even with needless detail? The discussion may have actually taken a few days…

But instead of slowing down the over all point it simple says Jesus came upon the fisherman, asked the to join them and they at once left their net.

Like wise…

I could come to you… talk to you in depth about going hiking in the mountians, saying you should go on retreat with me and my friends… and after talking about ti, ask you, and you immediately say Yes…

Would I be lying if i simply said… I went to you… Asked you if you wanted to come, and you said yes?

Not in the slightest…

Just something to think about

In Christ

 

[Refugium]

It means different things to different Protestants. Martin Luther condemned “works salvation”, but he believed in baptismal regeneration. However, many Protestants claim that believing in baptismal regeneration is “works salvation.” Calvinists claim that believing in free will is believing in “works salvation” since anything done by humans to gain salvation - even faith - is a “work.” All Armianians believe in justification by faith alone. But OSAS Arminians accuse Arminians who don’t believe in OSAS of believing in “works salvation.” If you can lose salvation through sin - a bad “work” - then you don’t really believe in justification by faith alone.
How confusing…and don’t they all derive their contradictory teachings from Scripture alone? Sounds like they could use a Pope!

God bless,
Michael

 

[tabcom]

Yes they had freewill not to follow. This was not a divine ORDER or COMMANDMENT that forced them to obey.

James

That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I’ve read in some time, oh wait, here comes another . . .

They followed because they saw something that appealed to them. They saw a natural leader with charisma

James

That’s right folks, Jesus was just a charismatic leader of men.

Are you going to anwer (sp) my question about . . .

I fail to see the value in addressing it.

BTW - your preoccupation with race in these dialogs does not resonate well with the universality (Catholicism) of Christian message.

James

Define universality. Please, I’m not looking for your opinion of what you think it means. What is the offical RCC definition?

If I were a Roman Catholic, I’d be embarrassed by the things this guy says.

 

[tabcom]

Tab…

You brought up a verse that made me think, and I wanted your opinion…

You have asked several thoughtful questions within two separate post. Would you be so kind as to restate just one at a time, and we can discuss it to its fullness before moving forward.

 

[Pax]

Tab,

I think that you are confusing a couple of things here. Please note that no one believes that man can oppose God in such a way as to overcome that which God decides to accomplish. If God decides to create a supernova somewhere in the universe, I am not in a position to oppose his will. Likewise, if God decides that today I must give up my life and render my soul to judgment, then there is nothing I can do about it. No amount of opposition or will power on my part will change that event.

This is something different, however, from the subject at hand. God created man with free will. God did this deliberately as part of our human nature that is created in His image and likeness. God will never take this from us. If he did, we would cease to be human beings in his image and likeness, and we would never be able to be called His adopted sons and daughters. We would, instead, be something else.

Free will is part of what and who we are and God wants it that way. That is why we are free to love or to hate. God’s grace is an enabling gift. God’s grace empowers us to a freedom that allows us to choose to do what is right. Choosing what is good is natural to man. Unfortunately, the fall of Adam so diminished and damaged man that his perceptions of what is good are quite distorted. God’s grace lifts us out of this condition and enables us to see the truth and goodness of God and His vision for man. His grace likewise empowers us to make the choices in favor of His goodness and truth. Under no circumstances are the choices forced upon us. If they were then grace and faith would no longer be gifts. They would, instead, be something different.

I hope this helps.

 

[CentralFLJames]

That has to be one of the most idiotic statements I’ve read in some time, oh wait, here comes another . . .

That’s right folks, Jesus was just a charismatic leader of men.
I fail to see the value in addressing it.

Define universality. Please, I’m not looking for your opinion of what you think it means. What is the offical RCC definition?

If I were a Roman Catholic, I’d be embarrassed by the things this guy says.

Even though I failed to see the value of addressing your question about what “we” thought the scripture meant to us personally I answered it honestly. You then have the uncharitable audacity to refuse to answer my question because YOU fail to see the value in addressing it? How convenient. You make personal assertions about your private interpretation of scripture and then run away when asked to explain and defend it? Then you respond to my honest answer by calling me an idiot while you run away and hide from my question to you? Do you know that God abhors a coward and somone who calls his fellow man a fool?

I’ll admit though that I didn’t really expect an honest answer from you - since all you have been doing in these discussions is obscuring the topic by hiding behind “the Greek” so to speak. No one here benefits from your amateur editorializing and language analysis of scripture. Each here has access to professionally cross referenced and annotated editions of scripture. You arrive at a different perspective for one reason. Someone taught you doctrine that we Catholics know is wrong and have proved it as wrong over and over again here. You simply stood on a house of doctrine that was not built on rock. Now that it has been shaken you run. This is what we always see in these sort of discussions until the person running can run no further and must face the truth.

If you can’t face honest dialog eye-to-eye and man-to-man and must flee from reason while hurling insults at least learn to run away in quiet humility. I know that goes against your personal doctrine. But it’s better behavior for the fleeing person to let the other hold to the assumption of honor rather than to prove the encounter had nothing of honor to be gained. Besides that, it is shameful.

James

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

I think that you are confusing a couple of things here. Please note that no one believes that man can oppose God in such a way as to overcome that which God decides to accomplish.

Except for salvation which you can oppose; correct?

Pax:

Free will is part of what and who we are and God wants it that way. That is why we are free to love or to hate.

Mankind is not free to love, or hate; men are commanded to love God, not hate Him; men are commanded to love their neighbors, not hate them.

If they were free to hate, then there would be no consequence, there would be no punishment for hating God and neighbor; however, men who hate God, and neighbor will be punished, though God forbears the punishment.

Pax:

Choosing what is good is natural to man.

How do you know that?

Pax:

His grace likewise empowers us to make the choices in favor of His goodness and truth.

If choosing good is natural to man, then why does man need God’s grace to “empower him to make choices in favor of God’s goodness and truth?”

 

[davidv]

Except for salvation which you can oppose; correct?

Correct

Mankind is not free to love, or hate; men are commanded to love God, not hate Him; men are commanded to love their neighbors, not hate them.

Not so. A command does not imply no choice. You are free to disobey. Everyday many choose to disobey God.

If they were free to hate, then there would be no consequence, there would be no punishment for hating God and neighbor; however, men who hate God, and neighbor will be punished, though God forbears the punishment.

Why does freedom imply no consequences. Our everyday experiences testify against this idea.

If choosing good is natural to man, then why does man need God’s grace to “empower him to make choices in favor of God’s goodness and truth?”

Because in our fallen state, we sometimes choose that which is not in accord with our true nature.