"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[guanophore]

“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.

It is your opinion that it is opinion, therefore you are entilted to it. However, Catholics believe that Jesus is able to keep His promises,and has done so. It is true that “magesterium” is a latin word and it has a RC identity.

Has Eastern “Catholicism” ever accepted that doctrine? Do your “Protestant brethren?” It is not universally accepted, nor ever was.

Of course the Orthodox do. This concept appears consistently through the first ten centuries of the Church. At that point, a schism occurred, but the Orthodox never abandoned the commitment to sacred tradition. They don’t call it “magesterium” they call it the Apostolic Teaching of the Fathers, but it is the same. The Protestants rebelled against this doctrine, which is what makes them protestants. The concept does remain in many denominations, though. You can find it when you look at where the doctrines of faith are written, and the source to which appeals are made when disagreements occur.

It is taught by the Roman church alone and accepted by those who place themselves under its authority alone.

I will accept that your understanding of the history of the Christian Church is limited in this matter.

Hence my challenge regarding a RC’s ability to approach either the Scriptures or the early writing free from presuppositions.

This is just being narrow minded, Apo. Literary criticism can be conducted on any peice of literature according to any number of different hermeneutical “glasses”. I was trained to use protestant glasses initially. What I did not know at the time is that they were “glasses”. After further study, I realized that there are other ways to approach the writings. All are presuppositions. The key is being able to identify ones presuppositions, and set them aside, or be able to use a different set. Anyway, why would one NOT want to presuppose that the early fathers, being closer to the events and teachings than we are, have a more accurate perception of them?

There’s a difference between a proper hermeneutics and an outside “source” to “guard and guide your understanding.”

Maybe you are like I was, and don’t realize that the hermeneutic method you are using and think of as “proper” is just another set of glasses?

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.

I cannot presume to know what he was thinking about at the time. But, it seems clear from all the differences in understanding that there are many things in scripture that are difficult to understand. We can’t ALL be right, or ALL be wrong!

Those who distort those writings do so out of unbelief, not because they’re difficult.

What makes you think there is a difference? the reformers did not want to believe what the Catholic Church was teaching, so they interpreted the scriptures differently so that things would not be so difficult. I realize part of it was politcs, too. But, if the Catholic way did not seem more difficult for you, you would be Catholic! You can’t because the doctrinal differences are a point of unbelief for you.

Which writings of the so-called “early fathers” do you consider part of the “current” canon of N.T. Scripture?

I gave two examples above that are found in the NT, but are not in the canon.

By the structure of your sentence are you suggesting that Rome (upon its own declared authority) might add to the N.T. canon?

No, the canon is closed. And no, the authority of the magesterium comes from Jesus, through the apostolic succession.

I believe that we are drifting off topic, unless you are willing to explore how the writings of the early fathers relate to the concept of salvation.

 

[guanophore]

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!

No, but he is presenting a common misuderstanding and frequently misarticulated understanding of Church teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, though faith, based on the sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross at calvary.

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

This is an absurd statement Apo! You know your self that no one can be saved by works of one’s own flesh!

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.

Are you saying that you are in agreement with Catholic teaching here, Apo? I need to make sure before I fall off my chair! Salvation is a free gift of God in Jesus? People are saved through the sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross? Saved people stay connected through obedience, by grace, through faith?

But all this is moot since one is not saved “till” he is judged and is gifted the so-called "Beatific Vision.

Do you deny that this will be the ultimate state of the saved person?

"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.

I think you misuderstand Catholic teaching, Apo. The works that are judged are the works that God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. These are not works of the flesh, but sacred works, made so because they are done in faith, by grace, and proceed out of the state of grace achieved by baptism.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

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.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.”

Thanks for correcting me. I actually wasnt going to add this but I did.

 

[Truthstalker]

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.”

Ah. Information based on tradition, not the Bible. It is interesting to note when you are willing to use extra-Biblical material to support your position, but you condemn Catholics for doing the same thing.

 

[apophasis]

Ah. Information based on tradition, not the Bible. It is interesting to note when you are willing to use extra-Biblical material to support your position, but you condemn Catholics for doing the same thing.

What’s extrabiblical about it? I’m not drawing from Gnosticism as a source of truth. I don’t follow your line of thinking.

 

[Truthstalker]

What’s extrabiblical about it? I’m not drawing from Gnosticism as a source of truth. I don’t follow your line of thinking.

You are drawing on your belief that the passage is discussing gnosticism to interpret the Bible, and using that belief as an indicator of how the passage should be read. Nowhere does John say he is fighting gnosticism - you have to look outside the Bible for that information.

It seems you can’t see that you are operating out of a traditional basis and not a Scripture-alone basis. That basis has things such as grace alone as a presupposition, the Protestant Bible is all inspired and nothing else is, and many other assertions that need to be established before the Scriptures can be interpreted. You have presuppostions that you probably have not thought through. We all do. Catholics are open about it and call theirs Tradition. Protestants have their traditions but often hotly deny they have one, in itself a tradition.

 

[apophasis]

No, but he is presenting a common misuderstanding and frequently misarticulated understanding of Church teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, though faith, based on the sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross at calvary.

Plus works!

This is an absurd statement Apo! You know your self that no one can be saved by works of one’s own flesh!

I know that no one can be saved by ANY works except the efficacious, sacrificial work of God the Son on the cross on our behalf. When God saves no other work is considered.

Are you saying that you are in agreement with Catholic teaching here, Apo? I need to make sure before I fall off my chair!

Nope. Get back up. I was reiterating his contradiction. Read it again.

Do you deny that this will be the ultimate state of the saved person?

I deny that that is when a person will know he is saved.

I think you misuderstand Catholic teaching, Apo. The works that are judged are the works that God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. These are not works of the flesh, but sacred works, made so because they are done in faith, by grace, and proceed out of the state of grace achieved by baptism.

It doesn’t matter, guano, the Scriptures are clear - especially those written through Paul.

Salvation is based solely on the finished work of God the Son - His efficacious, propitiatory, reconciliatory, redemptive work on the cross. There simply is no other work that meets the requirement. Nor does God take any other works into consideration when He saves. That’s why it’s “by GRACE through FAITH.” One must trust in His work, and His alone. Not even what you call “sacred works” accomplished by God through men:"…for all sinned and are falling short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift (how? “sacred works” accomplished through men, NO!) by His GRACE through the redemption (which is in “sacred works” accomplished through men? NO!) which is IN CHRIST JESUS" (Rom. 3:23-24).Paul is ohhh soooo clear on this, don’t you think?

 

[apophasis]

You are drawing on your belief that the passage is discussing gnosticism to interpret the Bible, and using that belief as an indicator of how the passage should be read. Nowhere does John say he is fighting gnosticism - you have to look outside the Bible for that information.

That’s not “extrabiblical,” it’s interpreting based on its historical setting. It’s just good hermenuetics.

It seems you can’t see that you are operating out of a traditional basis and not a Scripture-alone basis.

But my doctrines are built on Scripture alone. Not early church writers. Not late church writers. Not an extrabiblical source. Not so-called extrabiblical “oral” tradition.

 

[apophasis]

I think you misuderstand Catholic teaching, Apo. The works that are judged are the works that God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. These are not works of the flesh, but sacred works, made so because they are done in faith, by grace, and proceed out of the state of grace achieved by baptism.

Why must these “sacred works” be judged at all if they’re already deemed “sacred” and it was God Himself who prepared them? How could “sacred works” be judged anything less than worthy? And if it was God Himself who prepared them, then how could He judge them anything less than righteous? They’re “sacred” and they’re His. Why should they come under divine scrutiny at all?

But still, salvation is not based on any work but that which the Son accomplished on the cross. There, and only there, did God have His Judgment Day on ALL our sins. For this reason it (salvation) is through faith:Rom. 5:1-2 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;What’s so difficult to understand about Paul’s writings?

 

[dcdurel]

But still, salvation is not based on any work but that which the Son accomplished on the cross. There, and only there, did God have His Judgment Day on ALL our sins. For this reason it (salvation) is through faith:

When we are baptized and we justifying grace. After this initial justification, we can also be justified by obedience.
James writes, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Thus after our initial justification by grace at baptism, one of the conditions for receiving more of the grace that Jesus earned by his death and resurrection is by obedience, or “works” as James calls it.
This is different from the works St. Paul writes about. St. Paul is NOT writing about works of obedience to Jesus, but he is condeming man made ideas that require Christians to follow Jewish ritual and ceremonial laws such as circumcision.

Rom. 5:1-2 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;What’s so difficult to understand about Paul’s writings?

Nothing. For in Rom 5:1-2 he is writing about the beginning of salvation. St. Paul also writes in Philippians to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. In this case, he is writing about obedience. Thus, there is no contradiction between this statement and His earlier statements about “works of the law” which are NOT works of obedience, thus they cannot bring more justifying grace.

Thus, the bible is clear that after the beginning of salvation when we are baptized, we also need to obey Jesus to receive more of this justifying grace. And if we don’t obey Him in serious matters, we lose this grace and our salvation.

What is so difficult about that?

 

[apophasis]

Thus, the bible is clear that after the beginning of salvation when we are baptized, we also need to obey Jesus to receive more of this justifying grace. And if we don’t obey Him in serious matters, we lose this grace and our salvation.

What is so difficult about that?

Nothing at all. It’s not Biblical but it is quintessentially RC - salvation by works. Guano and TS keep trying to deny that this is the RC position. So you need to direct your post to them. It (salvation) begins with obedience to a sacrament (the majority of RCs enter in as infants) and is then maintained by sacraments. Notice what’s missing?

 

[dcdurel]

Thus, all these Protestant condemnation of “works” stems from a complete misunderstanding of St. Paul’s writings.

St. Paul only condemns the idea that in addition to faith and obedience being necessary to receive the grace that saves us, Christians also must follow the Jewish ceremonial and ritual laws. But, since Jesus never taught that Christians must follow the Jewish ceremonial and ritual laws, then St. Paul was NOT condemning the necessity of obeying Jesus, he was condemning the idea that faith and obedience to Jesus was NOT enough. He was condemning the idea that MORE was needed.
By interpreting St. Paul to mean obedience, Luther and Calvin make St. Paul condradict himself in those passages where he teaches that obedience is necessary, they make St. Paul contradict James, where he clearly says we are justified by obedience, which he calls works, and they make St. Paul contradict Jesus, where He makes obedience necessary, and they make St. Paul contradict the Gospel the Church has learned from the apostles and handed down from generation to generation.
Thus, they establish in the minds of their followers that the commandments and moral teachings really don't mean very much, with disasterous consequences.

 

[Truthstalker]

That’s not “extrabiblical,” it’s interpreting based on its historical setting. It’s just good hermenuetics.But my doctrines are built on Scripture alone. Not early church writers. Not late church writers. Not an extrabiblical source. Not so-called extrabiblical “oral” tradition.

I could get into what decides what “good hermenuetics” is (which is extraBiblical in itself). The point is that information outside the Bible is being used by you to interpret what the Bible says - something you condemn Catholics for doing, but here you are doing exactly that. You are following a tradition which includes historical data (John fought gnosticism - something history teaches us but is not in the Bible) in order to establish what the Bible says. You stated previously that you were interpreting 1 John 1:9 in light of information about gnosticism, when discussing what the doctrines are. You are contradictory: you are denying doing in one paragraph in one post what you just got through defending in the previous sentence.

And yes, they are “your” doctrines. It is amazing that you don’t see that as a problem - you are the sole interpreter of the Bible. You go beyond Calvin in many of your statements. Are you the only right interpreter of the truth? Then you should have no problem allowing the Catholics to have a Magisterium. Either you learned what you believe from the Bible and your own study or you picked it up someplace.

And I am to decide who is more likely to be right: you, the sole authority, or 2000 years of study, thought and prayer by some of the smartest and most knoweldgeable people on the planet who learned it from the apostles. Tough choice? I think not.

 

[Truthstalker]

Nothing at all. It’s not Biblical but it is quintessentially RC - salvation by works. Guano and TS keep trying to deny that this is the RC position. So you need to direct your post to them. It (salvation) begins with obedience to a sacrament (the majority of RCs enter in as infants) and is then maintained by sacraments. Notice what’s missing?

What’s missing is you accurately representing what is being told to you. It is not salvation by works - however so much you insist it is. I don’t know how to get that across any plainer. :banghead: You aren’t listening. Your mind is made up. You are not dialoging. I tend to think you are here only to do evangelism, not to learn about Catholicism. You spend a lot of time telling Catholics what they believe is wrong and what you think they should believe.

And it is not “RC”, which is only Roman Catholicism. There are other rites than the Roman Rite in the Catholic Church - something you seem unaware of in using “RC”. Some of your comments about Catholicism border on being contemptous and insulting.

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, though faith, based on the sacrificial work of Jesus on the cross at calvary.

B]Plus works!

I

No, Apo, the Catholic Church does not teach that people are saved by works of the flesh. The Catholic Church teaches that people are saved by doing the works of God.

know that no one can be saved by ANY works except the efficacious, sacrificial work of God the Son on the cross on our behalf. When God saves no other work is considered.

At least we agree on this point. People are saved by grace, thorugh faith, as a result of the saving work of Christ on the cross. When we are baptized, we are buried with him, and rise with him in newness of life. We can then join our sufferings to His. But, although Christ died for all, not all choose to receive the heavenly gift. Reception of it requires the Work of God.

Salvation is based solely on the finished work of God the Son - His efficacious, propitiatory, reconciliatory, redemptive work on the cross. There simply is no other work that meets the requirement. Nor does God take any other works into consideration when He saves. That’s why it’s “by GRACE through FAITH.” One must trust in His work, and His alone. Not even what you call “sacred works”

FAITH is a work of God. A sacred work. But at least we can agree that this work is the basis of salvation, and that without it, no one is saved. Once a person is saved, their life becomes an expression of their position in Christ. All the work that they do, predestined for them before the foundation of the world, reflects their faith in Christ, His saving power, and demonstrates to the world that our lives are hidden with Christ in God. The sacred works flow OUT of trust in Him. In performing them, we are JOINED into his saving work, and become part of His plan of redemption for the world.

accomplished by God through men:"…for all sinned and are falling short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift (how? "sacred works" accomplished through men, NO!) by His GRACE through the redemption (which is in "sacred works" accomplished through men? NO!) which is IN CHRIST JESUS" (Rom. 3:23-24).Paul is ohhh soooo clear on this, don’t you think?

I do think that Paul is clear, but I can see that you are not! Sacred works are not accomplished by “men”. I suppose you could say they are accomplished “through” men, but they are based only on God’s grace, and His power. They do not proceed “from men”, but from the Holy One, which is what distinguishes them from works of the flesh. Your beloved Paul writes often about being a participant in these sacred works. The ministry of reconciliation is one of these:

"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:18-21

Sacred works (the good works that God predestined us to do ONCE SAVED) are ALL FROM GOD. We are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal THROUGH us. We BECOME the righteousness of God. It is not that we become holy by some power of ourselves, but we become that which He has created us to be, holy and blameless. This is God’s good (sacred) work in us and through us.

 

[apophasis]

“Life is not fair. Thank God! Given a choice between mercy and justice, I’ll take mercy every time.”

• Chronicles of a Neurotic Unicyclist

I’ll take justice since divine justice was perfectly met at the cross - which then guarantees my salvation:"…that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"

 

[apophasis]

At least we agree on this point. People are saved by grace, thorugh faith, as a result of the saving work of Christ on the cross. When we are baptized, we are buried with him, and rise with him in newness of life.

I agree with the first part but not the second. Being buried with Him and raised to new life IN HIM happen at the time of personal faith.

We can then join our sufferings to His.

Propitiatory suffering?

But, although Christ died for all, not all choose to receive the heavenly gift. Reception of it requires the Work of God.

True not all will believe the report. Reception of it requires FAITH, not work.

FAITH is a work of God.

The “drawing” I believe is a work of God, faith is response of men to the message of the cross.

The sacred works flow OUT of trust in Him. In performing them, we are JOINED into his saving work, and become part of His plan of redemption for the world.

“…through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24)

"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:18-21

Sacred works (the good works that God predestined us to do ONCE SAVED) are ALL FROM GOD. ** We are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal THROUGH us. We BECOME the righteousness of God.** It is not that we become holy by some power of ourselves, but we become that which He has created us to be, holy and blameless. This is God’s good (sacred) work in us and through us.

You failed to notice 2 Cor. 5:17 which states"Therefore if any man is in Christ he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come"As to becoming the “righteousness of God,” that is covered in verse 21. Verse seventeen and twenty-one are the bookends to 18-20. In vs. 21 Paul states how a man becomes “the righteousness of God.”"He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God (how?) IN HIM."Remember verse 17? If any man is “in Christ,” he is a new creature. We become “the righteousness of God” being now “in Christ.” No longer in Adam (who sinned), but now “in Christ” the “last Adam,” the righteous One. Hence, the righteousness does not come through the participation of works (even “sacred ones”), but a whole new creation, a whole new indentification through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[Truthstalker]

I’ll take justice since divine justice was perfectly met at the cross - which then guarantees my salvation:"…that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus"

Getting justice without the interposition of mercy is death.

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We deserve death.

Heb 10:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

and

16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

I will take mercy over justice every time. I will seek to be merciful rather than to exact justice on others. We are called to forgive and let God be the avenger.

You eisegete eternal security into a verse where it is not mentioned.

If you understood the role of mercy, you would understand justice better, and Catholicism better.

God is just. We all deserve death because of what we have done. God sent His Son into the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. God did not send His Son into to the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. We are saved only because of God’s merciful act.

If you want to face God’s justice apart from the mercy of Christ, that is up to you. I wouldn’t.

 

[apophasis]

Getting justice without the interposition of mercy is death.

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We deserve death.

and

I will take mercy over justice every time. I will seek to be merciful rather than to exact justice on others. We are called to forgive and let God be the avenger.

You eisegete eternal security into a verse where it is not mentioned.

If you understood the role of mercy, you would understand justice better, and Catholicism better.

God is just. We all deserve death because of what we have done. God sent His Son into the world that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. God did not send His Son into to the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. We are saved only because of God’s merciful act.

If you want to face God’s justice apart from the mercy of Christ, that is up to you. I wouldn’t.

But that’s the whole point, TS. The mercy of God is that He sent the Son to meet the demands of His justice, being perfectly met and satisfied through His sacrificial death - not before, not after.

God never deals with any sin in mercy, and certainly not in leniency. No sinner is EVER forgiven because God is big-hearted enough to remit the penalty, or to waive the righteous judgments. He is forgiven only because His infinte justice was perfectly met at the cross.

Even the exercise of the forgiveness of God toward sinners is not an immediate act of grace (that would violate His justice). It is rather a judicial pardon of a debtor in view of the FACT that his debt has been fully paid by Another.

This is the gospel message, TS. That those who will turn from unbelief to belief in Christ (His Person and work) may now stand forever pardoned before God; not because God is gracious enough to excuse their sins, but because ther is plentiful of redemption through the blood that has been shed. And because of this He is free to forgive all, and to forgive perfectly.Eph. 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace…”

 

[guanophore]

I agree with the first part but not the second. Being buried with Him and raised to new life IN HIM happen at the time of personal faith.

" Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. " Rom 6:2-4

C’mon Apo! You’re not going to dis on your ol’ fav Paul, are you? Are you saying that getting baptized into Jesus does not happen with water? Are you saying this burial under the water occurs in the mind of the believer, at the moment of faith? If that is true, why was Paul baptized? Why are you so opposed to believing that a sacred mystery occurs during baptism? Does that amount to a “work” being involved in salvation?

Propitiatory suffering?True not all will believe the report. Reception of it requires FAITH, not work.The “drawing” I believe is a work of God, faith is response of men to the message of the cross."…through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24)

Hence, the righteousness does not come through the participation of works (even “sacred ones”), but a whole new creation, a whole new indentification through faith in Christ Jesus.

Action and response are required in order to participate in the righteousness of God in Christ. Jesus explained these works of God in John 6:28. If a person fails to do that work, one cannot be saved.

All the other works of righteousness that we are called to perform in Christ are based upon and flow out of this initial mixing of grace and faith. The new creation is formed when that grace of God meets with faith in the listener. A person is then baptized, becoming buried with Christ in his death.