"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[RNRobert]

For the sake of attaining one’s salvation?

The phrase, “go and sin no more,” is found in only one place (Jn. 8:11). And the story itself is not found in most of the old manuscripts.

So, now you’re saying that passage isn’t Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

Well, if you’re talking Biblically, an improper and inadequae understanding of justification is when the word “initial” is attached. Paul is the greatest teacher of this doctrine and nowhere does he attach that word.But Paul says that “all sinned (i.e., in Adam) and are continually falling short of the glory of God, being justified (through “faith works” that make the mark,”** NO!**) through the redemption which is IN CHRIST JESUS" (Rom. 3:22-23).

I realize that, Apo, but Catholics take the WHOLE of the Bible, and not just excise Paul from the rest. No, Paul does not use the word “initial” when speaking of justification. However, we can see from the balance of the scriptures that speak on the topic of salvation that there is a point in the past where it has been completed, that it is ongoing in the present, and that it will still happen in the future. Granted, from God’s perspective, since he is not trapped is the space time continuum as we are, He sees it all as one. We see through a glass darkly.

"*Missing the mark*," according to Paul,

I respect that your are a Paulist, Apo, but there are other usses of this word, other than Paul. I find myself reflecting on this default setting that you have. I used the words “missing the mark” and immediately, some sort of rubber band or bungee cord has you speaking the mind of Paul in relation to the words.

…has nothing to do with works of any kind, but having had sinned and continually falling short of God’s glory (His perfection). IOW, no human works of any kind can or could ever bridge the gap.

Did you think I said that someone could?

According to Paul only a divine justification can do that, and the kind of justification which is *gifted* (not earned/merited), based solely on the redemptive work of Another (the cross), the Son of God Himself.

I don’t mean to burst your bubble, but it is not only Paul that teaches this.

But RCs don't believe they can be fully saved in this life. You're still in the* process* of being saved (a doctrine akin to Rome's "*initial*" justification). IOW, when you become a RC you enter into a life on probation - waiting yet your final judgment.

News flash, Apo. I think that about you too!

You are wrong about Catholic teaching though, and wrong about Catholic experience. It is not life on probation. It is a working out of what is working within oneself. It is becoming a co-creator with Christ, and actively participating in the process of redemption by faith, through grace. Such a life is a glorious, joyful, and satisfying experience. Yes, we await final judgement, where we expect that we will be judged by our works in this life. Do you not expect that?

Now the question is, on what then is that final judgment based? On what basis does a RC finally merit salvation (if at all)?

Since you have a skewed perception of salvation, Apo, I don’t think it will be helpful to try to answer this question at all. I think that you already have your mind made up about what you think, that you believe Catholics have missed the boat, and I think you are here on this forum to see if you can save any of us by teaching the “real” gospel. At that time, I think you expect that we will abandon Catholicism for another church that is full of OSAS believers with whom we will feel more comfortable, having abandonded the “errors of Rome”. I went back and read your posts, as you can see.

 

[apophasis]

Grace.

Wonderful! :extrahappy: Then you agree that no works of any kind are involved:Rom 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.But then I don’t believe this is RC doctrine. Since every RC on here has stated that he is yet to be judged (in reference to salvation) according to his works. “Nu?”

 

[apophasis]

So, now you’re saying that passage isn’t Scripture?

My point was that Jesus did not “often” say it - it is recorded only ONCE and in a story not found in the oldest manuscripts. You can take it from there.

 

[apophasis]

Truthstalker:

The thing is, that He DID reverse the order of creation.

No He didn’t. He didn’t reverse the “order” of creation nor creation itself. But salvation has to do with being a “new creation” in the resurrected, glorified Christ. Not a reversal of creation. There’s no such concept in Scripture. No man was ever “created” a sinner - men are “born” sinners. Therefore no reversal of creation required, and no man can enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born.

Death itself started working backwards with the resurrection.

No it didn’t. Through Christ death, in all its aspects (spiritual and physical), was defeated. Physical death, an yet enemy of His, He will completely “abolish”:1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy that will be abolished is death (physical).

Heb. 2:14 "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

Rom. 5:17 "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Rom. 5:21 "…so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.There’s no notion of death “working backwards” here.

Death, and all it entails, still remains a reality for those who are not “in Christ Jesus.” But “life reigns” (now and into eternity) for every true believer now in the resurrected Christ.

He came to die (for sins) that He might give His life (resurrected and eternal) to those who believe. That’s really what Romans six is all about. As the life in the manna in the wilderness was transferred to the eater, so the life of Christ, resurrected, is transferred to the believer. Just as John introduces Him at the beginning of his gospel account:Jn. 1:4 "In Him was life; and the life was the light of men"And he testifies again in his Epistle:1 John 5:10-13 "The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in (not “of”) the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Adam’s fall was broken; the curse destroyed; man can be born again and set free from sin. Its power is not diminished but destroyed - it rattles on like a dead thing until the end of the world, but its fire is out.

These are empty words coming from you, since you believe sin still has the power to destroy you and your salvation.

And I believe in Him - enough to forsake all and follow Him,

But is this actually believing “in Him” or in yourself and your ability to “forsake all,” and by this, merit salvation? I’m just wondering.

 

[apophasis]

You are wrong about Catholic teaching though, and wrong about Catholic experience. It is not life on probation. It is a working out of what is working within oneself. It is becoming a co-creator with Christ, and actively participating in the process of redemption by faith, through grace. Such a life is a glorious, joyful, and satisfying experience. Yes, we await final judgement, where we expect that we will be judged by our works in this life. Do you not expect that?

I do not. I do expect at the “judgment seat of Christ” that my works will be judged and I will be rewarded (or not) according to their appraised value (see 1 Cor. 3:12-15). But neither I nor my salvation will be judged BY those works. My salvation is rooted in and based entirely upon the completed, historical work of Another.

Since you have a skewed perception of salvation, Apo, I don’t think it will be helpful to try to answer this question at all. I think that you already have your mind made up about what you think, that you believe Catholics have missed the boat, and I think you are here on this forum to see if you can save any of us by teaching the “real” gospel. At that time, I think you expect that we will abandon Catholicism for another church that is full of OSAS believers with whom we will feel more comfortable, having abandonded the “errors of Rome”.

Not at all. I am here to debate some teachings that come out of Rome which I believe are erroneous. Does debating these controversial issues make you uncomfortable? If so, then maybe it is you who are in the wrong environment.

Again you’re trying to change this thread to be obout your opinions cencerning me. Please stick to the topic.

 

[Church_Militant]

For the sake of attaining one’s salvation?

The phrase, "go and sin no more

," is found in only one place (Jn. 8:11). **And the story itself is not found in most of the old manuscripts.**So on whose authority are you gonna remove that from the canon?

Oh and you missed John 5:14.

 

[Milliardo]

For the sake of attaining one’s salvation?

The phrase, “go and sin no more,” is found in only one place (Jn. 8:11). And the story itself is not found in most of the old manuscripts.

So, on that basis, the story must be irrelevant then, and must be discarded from the Bible? And since it has no bearing on Pauline theology (I love this term–it’s as if Paul has more say than Jesus), then it does not apply to present day Christians then? Incidentally, that thought is prevalent among those who follow Paul so much that they tend to believe that what Jesus said does not apply to present day Christians. Funny notions again.

 

[apophasis]

So on whose authority are you gonna remove that from the canon?

Never said I wanted it removed. It’s duly footnoted in some of the published translations.

Oh and you missed John 5:14.

You’re right!! But notice it’s said in the context of immediate cause and effect. Not soteriological.

 

[apophasis]

So, on that basis, the story must be irrelevant then, and must be discarded from the Bible?

Nope. But it’s a good footnote.

And since it has no bearing on Pauline theology (I love this term–it’s as if Paul has more say than Jesus), then it does not apply to present day Christians then?

Oh, the conscious avoidance of sin is always relevant, even for the "OSAS “heretics.” As Paul instructs:Rom. 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

Incidentally, that thought is prevalent among those who follow Paul so much that they tend to believe that what Jesus said does not apply to present day Christians. Funny notions again.

All the teachings of Paul are based on the soteriological value of the cross and the eternal realities of the resurrection. Jesus did not always address His Jewish audience in such a context, so one must be careful to interpret according to the context in which He did speak.

How could they possibly grasp teachings based on future events they could not yet comprehend? Even Peter pulled Him aside and rebuked Him when He told them of His certain death and subsequent resurrection. If they didn’t believe His words concerning these things, how then would they, could they, even begin to understand what His death and bodily resurrection would produce? Such indepth teachings were reserved for after His death, burial and bodily resurrection. And no one explains them more clearly than Paul in his Epistles (see Eph. 3:4). Be careful that you don’t devalue them. They ARE the teachings of Christ, written by Paul, inspired (theopneustos, God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit.

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis:
Now the question is, on what then is that final judgment based? On what basis does a RC finally merit salvation (if at all)?

Your response:
Since you have a skewed perception of salvation, Apo, I don’t think it will be helpful to try to answer this question at all.

But you did answer it in the same post:

guanophore:

You are wrong about Catholic teaching though, and wrong about Catholic experience. It is not life on probation. It is a working out of what is working within oneself. It is becoming a co-creator with Christ, and actively participating in the process of redemption by faith, through grace. Such a life is a glorious, joyful, and satisfying experience. Yes, we await final judgement, where we expect that we will be judged by our works in this life.

(1) Here you clearly state on what basis your future judgment for salvation will be based: your works.

(2) I was not wrong about Catholic teaching. Since you “await” final judgment, a judgment that will ultimately determine your salvation, then you (and all RCs) live a life on probation.

 

[Milliardo]

Nope. But it’s a good footnote.

Wonderful–so anything that doesn’t fit your notion should become a footnote now? Maybe if it’s up to you, just like Luther did to the Old Testament, you’d place all of the New Testament as somehow below the Pauline letters.

Oh, the conscious avoidance of sin is always relevant, even for the "OSAS “heretics.” As Paul instructs:Rom. 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

That should be the case; however, it is notable that this is often less implied by OSAS, and in fact would rather fudge over it than actually relate to it. It’s as if such a thinking is alien to OSAS, and indeed to salvation itself. It’s treated more as a problem, rather than as part and parcel of salvation and how one must go about it.

All the teachings of Paul are based on the soteriological value of the cross and the eternal realities of the resurrection. Jesus did not always address His Jewish audience in such a context, so one must be careful to interpret according to the context in which He did speak.

That, unfortunately, is never so when the discussion of salvatiion comes up fro sola fide proponents, and which I would explain more below.

How could they possibly grasp teachings based on future events they could not yet comprehend?

Wow–if we take this assertion seriously, how can Christians even now grasp His teachings? If people then cannot grasp it, then it would be just as hard for people now to understand it. But even back then it was understood, though Jesus’ method of revelation was done in segments–He would patiently teach them certain points incrementally, so as to digest them more fully. This does not mean that people then did not comprehend it. They did, and in fact so much that quite a number opposed it. They knew very well the implications of His teachings. It’s not then that they didn’t understand, but the consequences of such that they feared.

Such indepth teachings were reserved for after His death, burial and bodily resurrection. And no one explains them more clearly than Paul in his Epistles (see Eph. 3:4).

I disagree–Jesus explained them already in great depth. Paul, just like most Christians after Christ, only echoed what He taught. How could Paul teach better than the Master Himself? Of course he could not; Jesus taught already so much, much better than anyone possibly could. So this premise of yours falls down quickly. I see here another reason why I see that Paul seems to be higher for sola fide proponents that Christ is–you just said it.

Be careful that you don’t devalue them. They ARE the teachings of Christ, written by Paul, inspired (theopneustos, God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit.

No, there is no devaluing here, but putting it in its proper perspective. Paul must be understood in light of the Gospel–and not the other way around. Protestants in general go backwards–the Gospel must be understood in light of how Paul sees it. That can never be. Paul must be understood properly, and that is in simple terms: how does Jesus teach it? It’s Jesus first, never Paul. Once one understands what Jesus taught, then one can see what Paul taught. The reference is Jesus, always Jesus. Not Paul. That is how the Catholic Church teaches–how did Christ understood it? The Church then follows what the Master taught. It echoes the Master, not supplants Him.

 

[RNRobert]

Wonderful–so anything that doesn’t fit your notion should become a footnote now? Maybe if it’s up to you, just like Luther did to the Old Testament, you’d place all of the New Testament as somehow below the Pauline letters.

Isn’t that what Marcion tried to do?

 

[RNRobert]

Paul told us to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12).

Here’s my question. If there’s absolutely nothing we do that effects our salvation, then why the need to work at all? And if our salvation is a done deal (if OSAS is true), then why the “fear and trembling?”

 

[guanophore]

And the diffference between this and free will is…

Since human beings are, by nature, unable to choose to follow God’s commandments without grace, then the human person is left with a choice. One can either choose to cooperate with grace, or choose to refuse the grace.

 

[guanophore]

But you did answer it in the same post1) Here you clearly state on what basis your future judgment for salvation will be based: your works.

(2) I was not wrong about Catholic teaching. Since you “await” final judgment, a judgment that will ultimately determine your salvation, then you (and all RCs) live a life on probation.

No, Apo, I did not say that. Christians experience the judgement of the just. Since we have been justified by grace, through faith, the debt of death we owed has been paid for us by Christ on the cross. We are no longer under the condemnation of death. I thought you understood this? I was sure I read this in one of your posts?

We have been transferred into His kingdom, where he will preserve us from stain until his coming. At that time we will experience a judgement of how we conducted ourselves now that we have been made "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Eph 2:10

Any works that are not of faith will be burned away, so that we can enter into his Presence without any blemish.

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of {our} God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, {and} to keep oneself unstained by the world.

 

[mikeledes]

Ezekiel 18:26

**26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. **

We turn away from rigteousness by chosing not to live righteously (i.e. sin). Sin is, in essence, a violation of the moral law of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments) and includes sins of omission (i.e. not doing the good you are supposed to do). That is why Jesus says that if we wish to enter life, we must keep the commandments. Moreover, refusing to do works of charity is a rejection of that call to love your neighbor as yourself. When we willfully turn away from the call to righteousness we received when we first became righteous before God, we will lose that gift of righteosuness and hence our “ticket” to a happy afterlife.

John 15:1-2,

**1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.

6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.**

The unproductive “branch” will be cut off and thrown into the fire. You cannot be a “branch in Christ” unless you have been genuinely justified. Otherwise, you could not be incorporated into Christ (“the Vine”). If you were not genuinely saved, then you were never a “branch” to begin with. How can you be “taken away” from something you were never a part of?

Here are similar verses:

Romans 11:20-22

**20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. **

Ezekiel 33:13, 18

**13When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. **

So much for the perseverance of saints. Enjoyment of eternal life in the world to come is promised to those of the justified who perserve in doing good to the end:

Romans 2:6-7

6 God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature ]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

These verses have largely gone ignored.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[apophasis]

That should be the case; however, it is notable that this is often less implied by OSAS, and in fact would rather fudge over it than actually relate to it. It’s as if such a thinking is alien to OSAS, and indeed to salvation itself. It’s treated more as a problem, rather than as part and parcel of salvation and how one must go about it.

Oh no. You’re just being slanderous now. Not sinning for us is not a salvation issue (i.e., attaining or maintaining it), but an identification issue:Rom. 6:2 "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"Such is the motivation for those who understand the security of their salvation and their new indentity in Christ. It’s the Biblical motivation and congruent with the gospel message of the cross.

No, there is no devaluing here, but putting it in its proper perspective. Paul must be understood in light of the Gospel–and not the other way around.

No, Paul is to be understood in light of the cross - which IS the gospel.

Protestants in general go backwards

No, those Prots. who understand go forward.

 

[apophasis]

No, Apo, I did not say that. Christians experience the judgement of the just. Since we have been justified by grace, through faith, the debt of death we owed has been paid for us by Christ on the cross. We are no longer under the condemnation of death. I thought you understood this? I was sure I read this in one of your posts?

We have been transferred into His kingdom, where he will preserve us from stain until his coming. At that time we will experience a judgement of how we conducted ourselves now that we have been made "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Eph 2:10

Any works that are not of faith will be burned away, so that we can enter into his Presence without any blemish.

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of {our} God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, {and} to keep oneself unstained by the world.

So then you DO believe in eternal security??? So when you said earlier that you will be judged BY those works, you didn’t have salvation in mind?

 

[mikeledes]

As Catholics, we believe in the perseverance of the elect. In other words, that God will ensure that the elect will die in a state of grace. With the aid of God’s freely given grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the elect will perservere in doing the good works God created them to do and thus fulfill an obligation essential for the final stage of salvation (i.e. eternal life in the world to come, glorification) (Romans 2:6-7).

Not all of the justified are counted among the elect and hence these will not die in a state of grace. But this discussion is more appropriate for the predestination thread. But being that eternal security was mentioned, I thought I should touch on this a bit.

God Bless,
Michael