"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[Church_Militant]

That’s a strawman; no one is forced to repent, but neither can one repent apart from the will of God, and the one that God wills to repent, will repent; and the one that God does not will to repent, will not repent

(Dt 29:4; Is 45:9; Mt 11:27; 13:10-11; Jn 6:44, 65, cf with Jn 6:37 notice all that are given will come; Acts 11:18; 13:48; Rom 9:18; Php 1:29).That’s Calvinist hooey.

Defying the very words of Our Lord Himself whan he said. (John 12:32) and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Paul believed it! 1st Timothy 2:3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4: who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So then repentance is left up to man as his response to the grace of God and the gift of faith…otherwise everybody gets a free pass, and that isn’t Biblical at all.

Repentance isn’t the only thing of course.
Acts 2: 38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

…and St. Paul believed it because it was the first thing that he heard upon his conversion. Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Faith alone…yeah…right…:dts: :knight2:

 

[Reformed1]

That’s Calvinist hooey.

Defying the very words of Our Lord Himself whan he said. (John 12:32) and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Isn’t it interesting that both sides choose when “all” means all and when it only means “some”?

Anyway, I guess in your theology Jesus isn’t strong enough to do what he wants to do, he needs your help.

 

[Milliardo]

Isn’t it interesting that both sides choose when “all” means all and when it only means “some”?

Anyway, I guess in your theology Jesus isn’t strong enough to do what he wants to do, he needs your help.

No–it simply means we cooperate in this plan of salvation. It isn’t a one-way street, but a process. That is why it is called a covenant, because there’s an exchange.

 

[Truthstalker]

Isn’t it interesting that both sides choose when “all” means all and when it only means “some”?

Anyway, I guess in your theology Jesus isn’t strong enough to do what he wants to do, he needs your help.

Bad guess.

Bad understanding of Catholicism. You haven’t been paying attention. Please revise and resubmit.

 

[Reformed1]

Bad guess.

Bad understanding of Catholicism. You haven’t been paying attention. Please revise and resubmit.

Does Jesus need your co-operation? If you answer yes, than Jesus isn’t strong enough to accomplish his own will without you.

It’s not a guess and you may not know your own theology but if Jesus needs your will, your co-operation, or you to do anything else than logically, he is unable to accomplish his desire without you.

 

[guanophore]

With regard to your other comments, I would suggest that you check some of my recent postings and read them in full…it is far from the truth that I would teach someone not to do the commandments…BUT…first things first. A person must be justified by faith…repenting from sin and turning to Christ as Lord and trusting in His great sacrifice and that alone for salvation.

And nobody has yet tried to handle the problem of the BASIS of justification which the Bible presents as “by faith alone apart from the works of the law”…the moral law/10 commandments included…nobody can be justified by keeping the commandments. We are justified by faith alone…then free to serve God and LIVE by His commandments with the proper motives. Please read my postings and then come back and handle the BASIS for justification.

I don’t understand. What is there to “handle”?

One thing to qualify that…answer me please with what “justified” means in Romans and what “justified” means in James 2. I will give you the reference below…

1344 δικαιόω [dikaioo /dik·ah·yo·o/] v. From 1342; TDNT 2:211; TDNTA 168; GK 1467; 40 occurrences; AV translates as “justify” 37 times, “be freed” once, “be righteous” once, and “justifier” once. 1 to render righteous or such he ought to be. 2 to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered. 3 to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.

I will tell you very plainly that justified in Romans is the third definition above, whereas with James, it is the second definition above.

You are asking people to tell you what it means, then you say"I will tell you plainly" so that you already know what it means. I don’t understand???

 

[Church_Militant]

Isn’t it interesting that both sides choose when “all” means all and when it only means “some”?

Anyway, I guess in your theology Jesus isn’t strong enough to do what he wants to do, he needs your help.

Anyway… I guess the glaring fact is that the scriptures plainly say that there is more to salvation than SF.

You can make snide remarks if you wish, but you can’t change what the New Testament actually says.

My question is who authorized you n-Cs to produce another gospel? It sure doesn’t look like the one that Jesus preached, nor the one that the New Testament preaches when you read it, nor is it the one that the Christian Church has preached and believed for 2,000 years.

Why replace it with a new wind of doctrine that only began to blow some 500 years ago?

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.uch:

 

[Reformed1]

Anyway… I guess the glaring fact is that the scriptures plainly say that there is more to salvation than SF.

You can make snide remarks if you wish, but you can’t change what the New Testament actually says.

My question is who authorized you n-Cs to produce another gospel? It sure doesn’t look like the one that Jesus preached, nor the one that the New Testament preaches when you read it, nor is it the one that the Christian Church has preached and believed for 2,000 years.

Why replace it with a new wind of doctrine that only began to blow some 500 years ago?

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.uch:

I find it interesting that you quoted Galatians 1:8 because the apostles apparently knew nothing of what you are required to believe as dogma by your church. Things such as infallibility, immaculate conception, etc…

 

[guanophore]

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Galatians 3:24-25

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1

God does not want puppets, only able to behave through his power. God will regenerate our sinful natures to cure the underlying condition of our sinfulness. Then we can be free to live as God intended, when we are resurrected on the New Earth.

I think this is off base. I agree that God does not want puppets, but there is NO WAY that we can “behave” without relying on His power. Yes, he regenerates our nature in baptism, so that we are no longer slaves to sin, and can live as God intended. But he wants us to begin this right now, not when we are resurrected.!

 

[Church_Militant]

Does Jesus need your co-operation? If you answer yes, than Jesus isn’t strong enough to accomplish his own will without you.

It’s not a guess and you may not know your own theology but if Jesus needs your will, your co-operation, or you to do anything else than logically, he is unable to accomplish his desire without you.

In your infallible opinion…for what it’s worth.

So, are you telling us that the New Testament is wrong and you are right? Pretty audacious, but so far all I see is rhetoric and propaganda. Who authorized this new gospel that is not found in the context of the New Testament? According to the New Testament we are supposed to reject and anathematize anyone who comes to us like that.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

 

[RNRobert]

Really? That certainly seems to be your interpretation…but not what the Lord says. Especially in Matthew 25:31-46. If I have a choice between the teachings of man and the teachings of Christ Himself… then I reject SS and SF.

I don’t really care a whole lot whether you guys agree or not the fact is that there is too much scriptural evidence that heavily contradicts Sola Fide for me to ever believe that again.

I think n-Cs can cherry pick proof texts til hell freezes over and it still won’t hold up for anyone who has actually read the New Testament all the way through. For every proof text you guys supply there are an equal number that refute it and that without having to search very hard, do mental and theological gymnastics and read an interpretation into it. I don’t by it now and I never will again.

You can waste your time on this if you wish, but you’ll never convince those of us who have done all the homework and honestly admit that SF doesn’t hold up in light of the rest of the New Testament. If, as I often hear, “scripture interprets scripture” then SF is dead wrong unless you leave out the rest of the New Testament. All this argument and no sale…hate it for ya.

But knock yourself out…these aren’t dumb Catholics here at CAF.

 

[RNRobert]

Does Jesus need your co-operation? If you answer yes, than Jesus isn’t strong enough to accomplish his own will without you.

It’s not a guess and you may not know your own theology but if Jesus needs your will, your co-operation, or you to do anything else than logically, he is unable to accomplish his desire without you.

But what about the gospel passage (don’t have time to look it up at the moment) where Jesus “was unable to do great works” due to the lack of faith of the people in a particular town? Seems to me like he needs our cooperation.

 

[Church_Militant]

I find it interesting that you quoted Galatians 1:8 because the apostles apparently knew nothing of what you are required to believe as dogma by your church. Things such as infallibility, immaculate conception, etc…

I beg to differ… you cannot say that because the apostles certainly knew who was infallible.

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There’s the promise.

1st Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. and there’s the statement that even St. Paul knew where the infalliblity lay.

None of this is relevant to the topic of this thread of course and so since you cannot refute me, you seek to derail the discussion with this. It’s all been answered before, but (Matthew 13:14) And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.

 

[Angainor]

But he wants us to begin this right now, not when we are resurrected.!

Begin what?

 

[Church_Militant]

But what about the gospel passage (don’t have time to look it up at the moment) where Jesus “was unable to do great works” due to the lack of faith of the people in a particular town? Seems to me like he needs our cooperation.

Matthew 13:58 And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief. (RSV 58: And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.)

 

[guanophore]

Is that completely fair or accurate?

I have not followed all of this discussion, but it seems to me that if Millardo’s comments are orthodox, then he has 2,000 years of infallible Church teaching backing his position.

The non-Catholic has only his own fallible interpretations of what the Word of God says - or those eisegetical traditions of the men who rebelled against the Church during the unpleasantness of the 16th century.

If you said that a wall was black, I would say, “The Church - through which and to which God gave the Bible - says it is white.”

I would say that by cleaning your non-Catholic lenses, you might wash some of that blackness away. It’s amazing what what can see when the scales are removed from your eyes.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

The church does not teach that people are saved by works. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. If Millardo says otherwise, he is not representing the teaching of the Church.

 

[Milliardo]

Does Jesus need your co-operation? If you answer yes, than Jesus isn’t strong enough to accomplish his own will without you.

It’s not a guess and you may not know your own theology but if Jesus needs your will, your co-operation, or you to do anything else than logically, he is unable to accomplish his desire without you.

It is always funny that some think that we do nothing in this plan of salvation, or that we shouldn’t do anything. That clearly isn’t the case. I think it has been pointed out many times that it’s tiring to repeat, but I haven’t seen any convincing argument against God judging our works, which basically means that faith isn’t enough, but a faith in action is what God seeks. This is cooperation–even Jesus Himself explicitly states to love one’s neighbor. Indeed, Jesus saved us, but that doesn’t mean also that we can do whatever we want. Certainly you’re not saying that we should continue living in sin even after accepting Christ, are you?

The church does not teach that people are saved by works. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. If Millardo says otherwise, he is not representing the teaching of the Church.

For the record, I have never stated anything of the sort. I always say faith and works go hand in hand, not just one or the other. (refer to post #90 where I actually said that)

 

[guanophore]

I find it interesting that you quoted Galatians 1:8 because the apostles apparently knew nothing of what you are required to believe as dogma by your church. Things such as infallibility, immaculate conception, etc…

Apparently you do not realize that, the reason the Church has these teachings, is that they were handed down to us by the Apostles.

 

[Church_Militant]

The church does not teach that people are saved by works. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. If Millardo says otherwise, he is not representing the teaching of the Church.

and the New Testament says what? Galatians 5:6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. So that is what the the Church teaches is it not?

(I know Miliardo knows what he’s talking about, but he may not have expressed it very well. That happens when ya get in a rush to post. :yup: )

 

[Truthstalker]

Does Jesus need your co-operation? If you answer yes, than Jesus isn’t strong enough to accomplish his own will without you.

It’s not a guess and you may not know your own theology but if Jesus needs your will, your co-operation, or you to do anything else than logically, he is unable to accomplish his desire without you.

He doesn’t need me, or my cooperation, or anything. But what He chooses to do is not based on a “need.” He chooses to act based on our responses.

Thinking God NEEDS anything is a cheap view of God. God is sovereign. He also gave us free will as a second order of creation. He sustains us every second (providence) and also works all things for God for those who love Him - without compromising our free will. Neither is God a rapist, forcing someone to believe against their will. Neither is there no predestination.