"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[guanophore]

If this was answered by the OSAS crowd, I missed it:

And what about this verse:

I don’t know if my OSAS brethren will have a different explanation, but I will interject for the sake of discussion. No, this verse has not yet been brought into this thread.

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” Col 1:24

I will expect my brethren to say that the suffering of Paul was his participation in unity with Christ, which Paul obtained from grace, through faith. Being made one with Christ, all the trials of Paul were part of the discipline of Christ(since Paul was one of the elect), and that when Jesus told Paul “I will shew him that which he will suffer for my sake” Jesus was disclosing to Paul that he was one of the elect. I am now ready for correction from my Calvanist brethren.

 

[Truthstalker]

The problem is that if you take it at face-value, as many verses have been taken on this thread, you can only conclude something was lacking in Christ’s saving work - something that required someone else’s work for completion. There has been an overinsistence on the absolute sovereignty of the work of Christ, without anyone else’s involvement, yet here Paul - that theologian par excellence, according to some - says Christ’s afflictions were not complete for the sake of the church. The verse suggests cooperation - Paul does not seem to be forced to suffer but rejoices in suffering.

Calvin’s commentary, interestingly enough, on this verse has Paul in partnership with Christ. And what is partnership but cooperation? Perhaps Calvin is too Catholic for our Calvinists.

 

[Truthstalker]

Which IS the divine standpoint:.

Actually it is one of the divine standpoints. God has foreknowledge and present knowledge. God, being outside time and space, sees creation as a whole. He doesn’t just look back from the future. He also looks forward, and at all of time all at once.

You missed the rest of my post.

 

[Truthstalker]

I am tempted to do one of those three-page long posts on all the verses about how we are co-workers with Christ. Those who claim it is a free ride are missing the boat. We cannot boast when the works we do are not ours but God’s, done by His power, at His will and command, in His time, with the cooperation He has given us in our free will, in the creation He has made. We cannot claim merit as our own. We only can give back to God what He has given us.

 

[sandusky]

Calvin’s commentary, interestingly enough, on this verse has Paul in partnership with Christ. And what is partnership but cooperation? Perhaps Calvin is too Catholic for our Calvinists.

Is that all that Calvin said?

 

[Coder]

Works is the exercise of faith. Works are required because faith requires them.

 

[Linkowski]

How do you know if you are of the elect?

How can a non-elect person be sanctified? What does that mean?

How can a non-elect person partake of the Holy Spirit?

Can a non-elect person be bought by Christ?

Can Protestants who do not believe in TULIP and die believing this be members of the elect?

Questions, questions, questions. I hope I haven’t overwhelmed you with questions.

God Bless,
Michael

Hebrews 6:4-7 NAS95 4 For 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, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and 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. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;

Note that they were unfruitful…dead faith - vain faith…

Partakers (Greek, metochos) has to do with association, not possession. These Jews had never possessed the Holy Spirit, they simply were around when He was around. This word is used of fellow fishermen in Luke 5:7, and of Christ in relation to the angels in Hebrews 1:9. It has to do with sharing in common associations and events. In the context of Hebrews 6:4, it refers to anyone who has been where the Holy Spirit has been ministering. It is possible to have an association with the Holy Spirit, to share in what He does, and not be saved. As we have seen (2:4) these Jews had heard the word and had seen and even participated in numerous signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. They were actually involved in some of His work.
The Bible never speaks of Christians being associated with the Holy Spirit. It speaks of the Holy Spirit being within them.
Here, however, are some persons who are simply associated with the Holy Spirit. Like perhaps most of the multitudes whom Jesus miraculously healed and fed, they partook of the Holy Spirit’s power and blessings, but they did not have His indwelling. They did not possess the Holy Spirit, nor did the Holy Spirit possess them.

Words like “tasted” and “enlightened” in this passage also show that we are not speaking of one who has been born again.

Then we get encouragement…

Hebrews 6:8-9 NAS95 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. 9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.

Now he is speaking of things that accompany salvation, whereas in the previous part of the chapter he had been talking only about things concerning revelation. Both of these things—the use of “beloved” and the discussion of salvation conditions—indicate the writer’s change of audience. The previous topics—intellectual enlightenment about God’s word, tasting God’s gifts and His Spirit, and so forth—accompany revelation, not salvation. They are meant, of course, to help lead to salvation, but they do not do so apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Coder]

Jesus spoke of kingdoms divided in Matthew 12:25. I think it is reasonable that a tactic of Satan would be to divide the Church. I also think this “works vs. faith” argument is artificial and may very well be a tactic by the enemy to divide.

It is abundantly clear in Scripture that one must live a life that pleases God including not sinning if one seeks heaven.

Hebrews 10:26-27
If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

I think that it is important to understand that when St. Paul spoke of works and faith he was sometimes speaking to Jewish people and referring to works of the law (Galatians).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

how do you know God chose you?

Hi,
I know only because I did what the bible told me to do in Romans 10:9-13
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”[a] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”**

That is some pretty powerful scripture. I believe it and I live it. The underlined part is really how I know because God is telling me and you BTW that if we believe with our heart(not just head knowledge)we are justified.

In my webster dictionary justified means------To show to be right or valid and /or To pronounce free from guilt or blame. That is what initial justification is. When we do what I have above and repent and ask for forgiviness–God justifies us immediately and accepts us as HIS. Then seals us with the HS until the day of redemption.
I base my belief of my salvation solely in having trust and faith in God’s promises. God has already shown us He is trustworthy to keep His promises. So I trust He means what He says.

What I am now going through is the sanctification process which you guys also believe the same you just combine justification and sanctification as one. I am being cleansed daily by the HS and through the HS God is making me more Christ-like as I grow and mature as a christian. MAN IS IT HARD BUT WORTH IT!!

The Bible says God desires ALL to be saved

.Yes but we do know through scripture that very few are going to make it to heaven. I dont know what God means when He says very few:shrug:

If some of us are pre-chosen to go to heaven and the rest pre=chosen to burn in hell, then we are merely automatons doing what we were pre-programmed to do, not creatures who freely choose to love God. Yes, God has the big picture and knows who will choose Him and who will not, but I do not believe God creates anyone just to burn in Hell. It is not what Scripture teaches, nor what the Catholic Church teaches, and since they were around for 1500 years before Luther and Calvin and company came around to teach something different, I’m stickin’ with them.

**Yeah I get what you are saying but the bible actually does teach this along with free will so honestly that is as far as I can probably go on the subject. I believe this topic probably needs to be studied and studied and studied before anyone can come to a deep understanding. And you know what maybe NOONE can ever come to a total understanding of this. This just may be a topic that humans wont be able to fully get because of our finite minds.

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Apo: (1) What would prevent you from doing the same with those writings?

Guano: If one approaches the study open mindedly, without a prior prejudice, then the likelyhood of forcing the evidence into one’s prior conclusion is less. If a person starts out with a preconception, and only looks for information to confirm it, then there is nothing that will prevent one from misapplication of the evidence.

I fully agree. But how is this possibly achieved for the RC who bows before Rome’s “magesterium,” personally accepting its claim to infallibility. How can you not approach both the Scriptures and those early writings apart from the “prior conclusions” authoritatively taught by them? How is it even possible for a RC to not read those writing as information confirming that which is already etched in stone from Rome?

(2) How do you know you don’t interpret those writings based on your own religious presuppositions?

It is hard not to do this. A good start is to be aware of one’s presuppositions, then strive to set them aside in order to objectively examine the evidence.

But as a RC you’re not allowed to set aside the authoritative teachings of your “magesterium”

(3) Since those writings are not divinely inspired, therefore having absolutely no more authority than my or your posts, are you then, a RC, allowed to interpret them "privately?"

Catholics recognize many levels of inspiration. I think that the early fathers rank quite a bit higher than the opinions in my posts.

First: You didn’t answer the first part of the question. Since they’re not Scripture are you bound to the authority of your “magesterium” when interpreting them?. Second: You error in your understanding of “inspiration.” There is no such thing as “levels of inspiration.” Either writings are theopneustos (God-breathed) or they are not. Writing cannot be a little bit God-breathed - some more, some less. How could anyone know where the Spirit left off and the human writer took over? To teach the doctrine of “levels” is to say that throughout Church history there have been partial Scriptures written. And if that’s the case, you cannot stop with just the “early writings,” but one must also include writings such as men like Luther and Calvin. Who could say otherwise???

We already have the infallible testimony of the Magesterium that the interpretation of predestination championed upon this board by the OSAS is in error, so my personal opinion becomes somewhat moot.

“Infallible Magesterium” is a doctrine based on opinion, not “inspiration.” It is unique to Roman Catholicism. It is what makes RCism, “Romanism.” I’m not at all trying to be offensive with that terminology here, just accurate in terminology. Has Eastern “Catholicism” ever accepted that doctrine? Do your “Protestant brethren?” It is not universally accepted, nor ever was. It is taught by the Roman church alone and accepted by those who place themselves under its authority alone.

We have resources to guard and guide our understanding of scripture that extends back to the first centuries, and we consider those sources of value,

Hence my challenge regarding a RC’s ability to approach either the Scriptures or the early writing free from presuppositions. There’s a difference between a proper hermeneutics and an outside “source” to “guard and guide your understanding.”

The fact that Paul’s writings are hard to understand is a scriptural teaching, and the RC’s hold to all that scripture teaches.

No it doesn’t. And you’ve been corrected on this before. Peter says SOME things Paul had written. And this was in the context of eschatology (cf. 2 Pet. 3:11-13), which even today the untaught and unstable distort (2 Pet. 3:16). Peter in no way teaches that Paul’s writing on soteriology are hard to understand. Those who distort those writings do so out of unbelief, not because they’re difficult.

The writings of the early fathers that are not part of the current canon are not because they were found to be of lesser authenticity or accuracy than the writings that were included.

Which writings of the so-called “early fathers” do you consider part of the “current” canon of N.T. Scripture? By the structure of your sentence are you suggesting that Rome (upon its own declared authority) might add to the N.T. canon?

 

[apophasis]

Semper Fi:

One cannot “lose” their salvation – as it is a lifelong process and not a one time event. You are not saved till you have been judged righteous by God and are given the Beatific Vision.

This whole sentence is choked full of contradiction. “One cannot lose their salvation” vs. “You are not saved till you have been judged.” If one is not saved “till,” then obviously one is not saved now. In this scenario, you’re right, one cannot “lose” what one does not have. And I believe you are presenting accurately the RC position on salvation: probationary!

Ultimately, salvation is yet to be divinely determined based on one’s works.

We do not earn our salvation, it is a free gift from Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross. We can however get disconnected from Him by going against His will.

Another blatant contradiction. One is “saved” giftwise by the willful obedience of Christ through His sacrificial work on the cross, vs., being saved by the wilfulness of the potentially saved to remain connected. But all this is moot since one is not saved “till” he is judged and is gifted the so-called “Beatific Vision.”

Yes, but not by faith alone, but by a living faith. We must respond to God’s will for us to do good works and charities.

Translated: “works.” Works which are yet to be “judged” to determine one’s salvation status (which has not yet occurred: “till”), which is manifested only if given the “Beatific Vision,” which is, like salvation itself, a future event.

 

[apophasis]

Truthstalker:

If this was answered by the OSAS crowd, I missed it:

And what about this verse:

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Paul says what is lacking in Christ’s “afflictions” NOT “crucifixion.” To teach that there was anything lacking in the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross to completely redeem a sinner is blasphemous.

Paul is talking in the context of afflictions he bore (even more than the other Apostles) because of the “word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19) which was entrusted to him by Christ.2 Cor. 11:23 "Are they servants of Christ?–I speak as if insane–I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death…And, yet, nowhere does he even hint to the notion those afflictions added to the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for their salvation. Their salvation was the RESULT of their believing the “word of reconciliation” Paul brought to them, even through the experience of great affliction on his part.Acts 9:16 “…for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Phil 1:29 "For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,"If personal suffering was to make up for what was lacking in Christ’s sacrificial afflictions for your salvation, then suffering in this world would not be “for Christ’s sake” but your own.

THINK about it before you respond.

 

[apophasis]

Linkowski:

Hebrews 6:4-7 NAS95 4 For 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, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and 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. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;

Note that they were unfruitful…dead faith - vain faith…

Partakers (Greek, metochos) has to do with association, not possession. These Jews had never possessed the Holy Spirit, they simply were around when He was around.

Exactly. It is written about Jewish “fence-riders” (uncommitted) whose desire it is to revert back to Judaism and its sacrificial system.

But this can easily apply to many “churchmen” today who also have been “enlightened” but have never actually become “light” in the Lord (Eph. 5:8). Who have “tasted” of the “heavenly gift” but have never actually received the gift of eternal life (Jn. 3:16). Who, by association, are made “partakers” of the Holy Spirit, but are never “born” of Him. Taste of the “good Word of God” but never believe it unto salvation. Taste of the “powers of the age to come,” but unlike a true believer, is never transformed by it.

So dangerous is their status that when these completely “fall away” it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.

This has been the situation of many churchmen. So much so that church officials (Catholic and Protestant alike), in order to counter it have, sometimes inadvertently, introduced law oriented doctrines. Thereby ADDING to and confounding the gospel message of pure GRACE.

 

[Coder]

Thereby ADDING to and confounding the gospel message of pure GRACE.

Division is not a fruit of grace.

 

[apophasis]

Division is not a fruit of grace.

Division for the sake of preserving the message of GRACE is. But historically, who excommunicated whom?

 

[Truthstalker]

Paul says what is lacking in Christ’s “afflictions” NOT “crucifixion.” To teach that there was anything lacking in the sacrificial work of Christ on the cross to completely redeem a sinner is blasphemous.

Paul is talking in the context of afflictions he bore (even more than the other Apostles) because of the “word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19) which was entrusted to him by Christ.2 Cor. 11:23 "Are they servants of Christ?–I speak as if insane–I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death…And, yet, nowhere does he even hint to the notion those afflictions added to the redemptive work of Christ on the cross for their salvation. Their salvation was the RESULT of their believing the “word of reconciliation” Paul brought to them, even through the experience of great affliction on his part.Acts 9:16 “…for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Phil 1:29 "For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,"If personal suffering was to make up for what was lacking in Christ’s sacrificial afflictions for your salvation, then suffering in this world would not be “for Christ’s sake” but your own.

THINK about it before you respond.

I’m thinking about your presuppositions. Where does it say Christ’s sufferings and afflictions were limited to the cross? He learned obedience how? Did He learn that on the cross, or before hand? His whole life was a life of sorrow and being acquainted with grief. He offered His whole life on earth up to the Father, culminating on the cross. So your statement about afflictions versus crucifixion seems to be a mere quibble and a dodge.

Nowhere do you mention Paul’s amazing statement that Christ’s afflctions were lacking. You attempt a circular proof by quoting the verse and then a few lines further you say “no where does it hint.” Well, you quoted the verse a minute earlier.

They would not have been brought the work of reconciliation without Paul’s sufferings, right? So Paul’s suffering was necessary for their salvation, which means there was something lacking in what Christ did, in accordance with what Paul wrote.
If faith requires hearing, and hearing requires a preacher, then there must be the work of some preacher to effect the salvation of another. You then must agree we are saved by the work of someone besides Christ. This, then, you must agree is not blasphemous: Christ’s work was sufficient for redemption but not delivery in this Pauline verse. Delivery requires work.

Suffering can be for someone else. Suffering can also be to conform oneself to the Gospel, whether in giving something up or taking on something. In neither case is the primary target the individual; it is done for Christ, by His power, by His orders.

In a narrow sense I will agree with you: Paul’s preaching and life were totally worthless - apart from Christ. But with Christ the story is completely different, on account of faith in actions, which is works.

He beat his body to make it his slave, lest he fall short of the standard.

1Co 9:27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

This is clearly not Paul believing in OSAS, because then he would have no concern about disqualification.

Your presuppositions require you to interpret everything in the context of faith alone, when verses more readily and clearly state something else.

 

[Coder]

But historically, who excommunicated whom?

You welcome and invited to become Catholic.

 

[Truthstalker]

Division for the sake of preserving the message of GRACE is. But historically, who excommunicated whom?

Leading question, as you know. The Church excommunicated some whose behavior it considered unacceptable. Do we need to go into what Luther was saying when he was excommunicated, and his previous allegiance to Catholicism as the true Church?

¶ Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

This verse is more readily applicable to Protestants than Catholics in terms of who exited.

We first need to agree on what grace is and then see who distorted it. But we need a set of presuppositions on which to be able to agree on how to agree, and to arrive at what is a distortion, what is ambiguous, and what is true. This hasn’t been done. Verses are being tossed around in presuppositional frameworks without agreement: there is no way, without a common basis, for persuasion to occur.

 

[apophasis]

Hi,
I know only because I did what the bible told me to do in Romans 10:9-13

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”[a] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”****

That is some pretty powerful scripture. I believe it and I live it. The underlined part is really how I know because God is telling me and you BTW that if we believe with our heart (not just head knowledge) we are justified.

In my webster dictionary justified means------To show to be right or valid and/or To pronounce free from guilt or blame. That is what initial justification is.

When we do what I have above and repent and ask for forgiviness–God justifies us immediately and accepts us as HIS. Then seals us with the HS until the day of redemption.

I’m with you on all this, Sis, except for the last part which you added to the Romans ten verse. You added “repent and ask for forgiveness.” But God justifies no one through the asking of forgiveness of sins. He justifies solely on the basis of personal* faith* in Christ (as stated in the Romans ten passage you quoted above - see vs. 6 as well).

We must be careful not to add our own conditions to salvation. Certainly a true believer is made sorrowfully aware of the sins he’d committed in his unsaved estate, and of course now in his saved estate, but salvation is never gained or maintained through confession of sins.

Now I can already see fingers hitting the keyboards and typing: 1 Jn. 1:9. But John is writing in the context of Gnosticism that had infiltrated the assemblies of some believers. A heretical belief that did not at all acknowledge even the Judeo/Christian idea of “sin.”

The word often translated “confess” in 1 Jn. 1:9 (Gr. homologean) means to “acknowledge.” John is essentially saying that if one “acknowledges” his sins, or his sinful estate (thereby believing), He (God) is faithful and just *to forgive us our sins * and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness." His forgiving and cleansing based entirely on the efficaciousness of the sacrificial work of His Son on the cross.

I base my belief of my salvation solely in having trust and faith in God’s promises. God has already shown us He is trustworthy to keep His promises. So I trust He means what He says.

AMEN! "For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness (Rom. 10:10), and with the mouth he confesses Jesus as lord (Rom. 10:9): “resulting in salvation.”

 

[guanophore]

But how is this possibly achieved for the RC who bows before Rome’s “magesterium,” personally accepting its claim to infallibility. How can you not approach both the Scriptures and those early writings apart from the “prior conclusions” authoritatively taught by them?

The acceptance of the teaching of the church on faith and morals does not prevent thinking. It also does not prevent private interpretation. It just says that, if you came up with something “other”, then you probably missed something.

In my case, I took biblical studies and exegesis from Protestant seminary, never having studied the Church teachings, so it was easy for me to look through a different lens.

How is it even possible for a RC to not read those writing as information confirming that which is already etched in stone from Rome?

I do agree that it requires an advanced ability in abstraction. But it is no different for me here on the forum when I read and understand your posts from an OSAS perspective. If you can get the right glasses on, you can do it with anything.

What you don’t seem to understand or appreciate is that Catholics WANT to understand things as the early Fathers did. We want to be biased toward their way of understanding because they were closer to the Apostles and the Teachings.

But as a RC you’re not allowed to set aside the authoritative teachings of your “magesterium”

I think you are confusing matters of faith, and matters of scholarship. Study and research take place constantly. Just because one studies something, that does not mean they must conform their life to what they are reading.

First: You didn’t answer the first part of the question. Since they’re not Scripture are you bound to the authority of your “magesterium” when interpreting them?.

When applying the content to my faithful practice as a Catholic, yes. Scholarly exploration is another matter. While informed by my faith, my mind is well able to stretch beyond the boundaries of faith practice. How else would I be able to study heresy? How could I read and seek to understand the Satanic Bible, for instance, a task which I have found myself in a position to require. According to your narrow thinking, Catholics ought to be book burning!

Second: You error in your understanding of “inspiration.” There is no such thing as “levels of inspiration.” Either writings are theopneustos (God-breathed) or they are not. Writing cannot be a little bit God-breathed - some more, some less. How could anyone know where the Spirit left off and the human writer took over?

Well, I will agree to disagree with you on this point. It is not “my understanding” anyway, it is the teaching of the church. We know the levels because God gave the HS to the church, and promised to protect us from all error. That sacred tradition is where you got the bible to which you now cling with all your might.

To teach the doctrine of “levels” is to say that throughout Church history there have been partial Scriptures written.

If you have read the early fathers, you can see that there are elements of them that are clearly on the same level as the scripures. That is why it was so difficult to discern which ones belonged in the canon,and which did not. Look at jude 8, where Jude is quoting from a non-canonical text! Clearly, Jude confirms that this story, nowhere found in our modern canon, is a sacred prophesy. For reasons I do not know, the book from which it came was not included. What about the saying “it is better to give than recieve”? This is found nowhere in the gospels, but is cited as a saying of Jesus.

And if that’s the case, you cannot stop with just the “early writings,” but one must also include writings such as men like Luther and Calvin. Who could say otherwise???

Exactly! And that is what the Magesterium continues to do today. You can see their judgements on the writings of men such as Luther and Calvin in the documents and council decrees.

(continued)