"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[apophasis]

Once again, a question for Apophasis, Sandusky, Linkowski, and AllFORHIM:

As non-Catholic Christians do you believe that at the point of becoming initially justified, i.e when a person first believes with saving faith, that the person is forever saved and is made permanently blameless in the eyes of God?

Just drop the nonbiblical word “initial” and you have your answer: “At the point of becoming justified” - period.

Yes, the true believer is FOREVER saved and now being “in Christ,” having been puried of ALL sins, is blameless in the eyes of God. All based on the expiatory value of the cross. Something which RC’ism has moved away from.

What do passages like Eph. 2:5-7 and Col. 3:1-4 mean to you? Are they just fanciful words, some pipe dream thought up by Paul? Or could they just possibly be the way God sees every true believer now “in Christ” - to His glory?

 

[apophasis]

You are completely off base here. The context in both books makes it quite clear that the inspired authors are indeed speaking to believing Christians. The following quotes from Hebrews should demonstrate the point.

Heb 2: 1. “ THEREFORE WE must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and “

The author over and over uses the word “we” and continues to do so in the letter. While there are many things to quote in Hebrews, we can get to the heart of the matter by focusing on some things in Chapter five that clearly establish that the author is addressing believing Christians. Hebrews 5:12-14 says, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Now please notice that the author tells those receiving his letter that by now they ought to be teachers, but that they are immature. He does not say that they are non-believers. Instead, the criticism of immaturity is explained by the fact that they are “unskilled in the word of righteousness.” They still need practice to distinguish good from evil, even though they should already be passed that. It is then that chapter six begins and the author warns these same people of apostasy. Right after the warning the author returns to exhorting them saying, “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”[Hebrews 6:11-12]

The same kind of contextual clarity can be observed in the book of Romans. In Romans 1:8 Paul says, “First I thank you my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.” In verse 13 Paul refers to those to whom his letter is addressed as “brothers and sisters.” Furthermore Paul goes hog wild using the collective term “we” in chapters 5 and 6 and elsewhere in the book of Romans. The apostle is writing his letter to the church at Rome. He is writing his letter to Christians for their edification. The context is clear.

Pax, you still fail to understand that although all Scripture is written for you, not all Scripture is necessarily written about you.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Once again, a question for Apophasis, Sandusky, Linkowski, and AllFORHIM:

As non-Catholic Christians do you believe that at the point of becoming initially justified, i.e when a person first believes with saving faith, that the person is forever saved and is made permanently blameless in the eyes of God?

Hi,
Yes, and I agree with Apoh on what he wrote as well.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

If it is a habitual attitude are you going to suggest that this good lady was never actually saved to begin with? That she is deceiving herself?

I hope that isn’t the case. Is it?

What was the purpose of the question???

 

[Pax]

The purpose of the question is to place in stark contrast the faith alone views expressed on this thread with the clear words of scripture.

If one is forever blameless before God after being justified, then there is no reason to ever confess one’s sins yet scripture says that we are to confess our sins. Moreover, scripture says that we must repent of sin after being justified. And scripture says even more about being blameless that is directly opposed to the views expressed by Apophasis and affirmed by ALLFORHIM.

Scripture says:

Phil 2:14-15
Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish

1 Cor 1:8
He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Phil 1:10
to help you to determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless,

1 Thess 3:13 And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thess 5:23
And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

Once again, scripture does not agree with the faith alone view and scripture in no way supports the position that we are "once and for all blameless in the eyes of God when we are first justified.

 

[apophasis]

The purpose of the question is to place in stark contrast the faith alone views expressed on this thread with the clear words of scripture.

If one is forever blameless before God after being justified, then there is no reason to ever confess one’s sins yet scripture says that we are to confess our sins. Moreover, scripture says that we must repent of sin after being justified. And scripture says even more about being blameless that is directly opposed to the views expressed by Apophasis and affirmed by ALLFORHIM.

Scripture says:

Phil 2:14-15
Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish

1 Cor 1:8
He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Phil 1:10
to help you to determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless,

1 Thess 3:13 And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thess 5:23
And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

Once again, scripture does not agree with the faith alone view and scripture in no way supports the position that we are "once and for all blameless in the eyes of God when we are first justified.

Hummm, I see the exhortation to do all things without complaining and the prayer that God might strengthen us in this life to do what is right (there is yet the judgment seat of Christ where our WORKS, done in this yet unredeemed body, will be examined); but, nope, no commandment to confess sins in order to become free of their guilt and condemnation. In fact Paul states that there is therefore NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

There’s that little, but very powerful, phrase again, “in Christ Jesus.” And Paul stated earlier that those who receive the abundance of gace and the GIFT of righteousness will “reign in life through the one Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17, see vs. 21). In Christ LIFE reigns.

Oh, Pax, how about my question to you? You didn’t answer it. It’s directly related to what I just wrote above.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

The purpose of the question is to place in stark contrast the faith alone views expressed on this thread with the clear words of scripture.

You haven’t done that, Pax.

Pax:

If one is forever blameless before God after being justified, then there is no reason to ever confess one’s sins yet scripture says that we are to confess our sins. Moreover, scripture says that we must repent of sin after being justified. And scripture says even more about being blameless that is directly opposed to the views expressed by Apophasis and affirmed by ALLFORHIM.

Blameless, and sinless are two DIFFERENT words, Pax. Words have meanings for a reason, Pax; get a Greek lexicon.

Pax:

Once again, scripture does not agree with the faith alone view and scripture in no way supports the position that we are "once and for all blameless in the eyes of God when we are first justified.

Once again, that’s Catholic soteriology, Pax; not biblical soteriology.

 

[Pax]

To both of you…I can only say that you are avoiding the clear truth set before you.

 

[sandusky]

To both of you…I can only say that you are avoiding the clear truth set before you.

The only truth that you have presented, Pax, is the scripture; your understanding of it, however, is not the truth. :nope:

 

[guanophore]

So then it is a life on probation.In other words - you’re saved by works.

I do not believe that there is any such category as “probation” in the Kingdom of God, the ancient Hebrew legal system, or the laws of Rome. However, for the sake of discussion, I will consider this concept, though it belongs to the modern Western European jurisprudence, and not to anything related to the source of the scriptures.

A person on probation has gone to court, and been found guilty. They are not pardoned, but they are under a legal consequence for their wrongdoing. If they fail in the conditions of their probation, then they will again incur the full penalty of the law which they violated initially, as well as perhaps other penalties. the reason I think this does not apply in a discussion about salvation is that the sinner is completely pardoned. The debt to “society” as it were (God’s righteousness) is paid by the blood of Christ. Such a person is then freed from the law, and has no futher obligations to it (as would a person on probation). When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that He did not condemn her, He did not put her on “probation”. He told her to go, and sin no more. If she did go back to that life of sin, it would not re-incur penalty for the original offense, but a new penalty. The initial one had been pardoned (forgiven) and no longer exists. You can’t have “probation” for offenses that no longer exist. If the case is dismissed, there is no grounds for probation. It think this is a faulty analagy.

So salvation is based on “obeying” and “doing.” Faith plays what kind of role in this formula? /QUOTE]

No, Apo. salvation is based on faith that obeys, faith that “does”.

“that the light came into the world,
but people preferred darkness to light,
because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
and does not come toward the light,
so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,
so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.” Jn. 3:18

These are sacred works, works “done in God”. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Anything that does not proceed from faith is sin. Faith is the entire foundation for obedience. This is why Catholics do not separate initial justification from sanctification. Once the process of becoming holy is separated from faith, it is no longer efficacious. It is impossible to be saved without faith. But, for the one who has faith:

1 John 3:18
18 Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth. "

One’s deeds, more than one’s words ("I have accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Savior) are what demonstrate that saving grace is at work.
apophasis;2113660:

Or, maybe he believed Jesus when He said:"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, HAS

eternal life, and DOES NOT come into judgment, but HAS passed out of death into life." Did Jesus err?

Surely not! But, this truth is not to be separated from other teachings that He gave. They must all be take together as a whole:

Luke 6:47
7 Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them…"

 

[guanophore]

but, nope, no commandment to confess sins in order to become free of their guilt and condemnation. In fact Paul states that there is therefore NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

Lev 26:40
“if they confess their iniquity”

Num 5:5-7
5 And the LORD said to Moses, 6 “Say to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men commit by breaking faith with the LORD, and that person is guilty, 7 he shall confess his sin which he has committed; and he shall make full restitution for his wrong”

5 I acknowledged my sin to thee,
and I did not hide my iniquity;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD”;
then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin." Ps 32:5

Keeping one’s iniquities to oneself creates sickness in soul and body. As they say, confession is good for the soul!

Ps 38:18
18 I confess my iniquity,
I am sorry for my sin."

A truly contrite heart is represented by a confession of sins. As long as one hides their sins in their heart, they are still hanging on to them.

James 5:16
16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

You say there is no “commandment” to confess sins, but this verse is in the imperitive mode. Or, since it is not written by your Paul, does it have less merit?

To me, this sounds like a conditional phrase. If…then

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

forgiveness, cleansing, and healing is what the Catholic church teaches come through the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Once again, that’s Catholic soteriology, Pax; not biblical soteriology.

Now that is funny(odd) or sad not sure which one fits best. You claim the Truth as relayed by God, the Holy Spirit and Christ is Catholic soteriology while claiming your man made soteriology is biblical. Do you read from right to left as well?

Free will is a hard thing to watch in your case.

 

[sandusky]

Now that is funny(odd) or sad not sure which one fits best. You claim the Truth as relayed by God, the Holy Spirit and Christ is Catholic soteriology while claiming your man made soteriology is biblical. Do you read from right to left as well?

Free will is a hard thing to watch in your case.

 

[mikeledes]

Romans eleven is not about “believing” Gentiles, but about “Gentiledom” in general.

And Heb. 10:26 is certainly not about believing Jews since they’re described as those who have “trampled under foot the Son of God” and “insulted the Spirit of Grace.”

As a Catholic you confound sanctified and justified. Not to mention works and grace.

As for the “we” he includes himself as a fellow Jew.

I ask you to reread the following carefully:

Romans 11:17-20

**17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. **

So the “you” refers to non-believing Gentiles? You mean to tell me, Apophasis, that non-believing Gentiledom were grafted into the olive tree (v.17&19), partake of its rich root (v.17), are supported by the root (v.18), and stand by their faith (v.20)? Characteristics that exclusively belong to Gentile Christians? Unbelieving Gentiles that stand by their faith?

Regarding Hebrews 10, you mean to tell me that non-believers are sanctified by the blood of Christ (v.29)?

I’m sorry if others are annoyed by my repetitiveness - you know who you are - but I feel obligated to respond to a rebuttal if I believe it defies other Scripture passages and the basic rules of semantics and grammar. The Bible is written in a human language and hence is subject to the rules of that language. When words like “you”, “grafted in”, “partake”, “fear”, “continue”, and “cut off” are redefined in a way that differs from the way they are commonly used - and their definition in any good dictionary - I cannot accept the argument and must explain why.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Thanks, Mike. :tiphat:

I knew you would finally see the light!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Romans 11:17-20

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,

18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.

19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you], either.

So you mean to tell me, Apophasis, that non-believing Gentiledom were grafted into the olive tree (v.17&19), partake of its rich root (v.17), are supported by the root (v.18), and stand by their faith (v.20)? Characteristics that exclusively belong to Gentile Christians? Unbelieving Gentiles that stand by their faith?

Regarding Hebrews 10, you mean to tell me that non-believers are sanctified by the blood of Christ (v.29)?

I’m sorry if others are annoyed by my repetitiveness - you know who you are - but I feel obligated to respond to a rebuttal if I believe it defies other Scripture passages and the basic rules of semantics and grammar. The Bible is written in a human language and hence is subject to the rules of that language. When words like “you”, “grafted in”, “partake”, “fear”, “continue”, and “cut off” are redefined in a way that differs from the way they are commonly used - and their definition in any good dictionary - I cannot accept the argument and must explain why.

God Bless,
Michael

The problem seems to be that “those words” pose a conflict with the out of context beliefs of a few. Not your problem. Thank you for going to great lengths to ferret out those points in Truth.

 

[clmowry]

Based on what I’ve seen on this thread: It will take divine intervention.

I’ll be praying for such as necessary.

Chuck

I knew you would finally see the light!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I would like to see a response to guanophore’s rebuttal to the eternal security/ perseverance of the saints interpretation of Hebrews 6 (post # 408)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144197&page=17

:coffeeread:

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Pax]

…
…

Yes, the true believer is FOREVER saved and now being “in Christ,” having been puried of ALL sins, is blameless in the eyes of God.
…

What do passages like Eph. 2:5-7 and Col. 3:1-4 mean to you? …could they just possibly be the way God sees every true believer now “in Christ” - to His glory?

…
…
In fact Paul states that there is therefore NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

There’s that little, but very powerful, phrase again, “in Christ Jesus.”

Oh, Pax, how about my question to you? You didn’t answer it. It’s directly related to what I just wrote above.

You haven’t done that, Pax.

Blameless, and sinless are two DIFFERENT words, Pax. Words have meanings for a reason, Pax; get a Greek lexicon.

Once again, that’s Catholic soteriology, Pax; not biblical soteriology.

Alright let’s take another look. At first you had no problem with the word blameless and answered my first question. Then when your view was corrected by scripture as it refers to “blameless” you then attempted to change your tune as well as the clear meaning of the word. Just for your edification I’ll let you read what my Bamford’s Bible Dictionary says about the word. It says “without fault.” I checked the first usage of the word blameless in the NT. It is found in Luke 1:6 in reference to Elizabeth and Zachariah. This usage like all of the others I previously quoted refers to walking in obedience and not commiting sin. The following non-Catholic bible translations should help you see that point.

– Living Bible
Luke 1:6 Zacharias and Elizabeth were godly folk, careful to obey all of God’s laws in spirit as well as in letter.

– Weymouth’s New Testament
Luke 1:6 They were both of them upright before God, blamelessly obeying all the Lord’s precepts and ordinances.

Disobedience is sin…being blameless is just the opposite. A person would not be blameless if they were disobedient. Interestingly enough Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary also defines blameless differently than you do and even makes a reference to scripture. Webster’s says the following:

Blameless: “without fault; innocent; guiltless; not meriting censure; irreproachable; spotless; unblemished.”

Blame: “fault; crime; sin; usage, That we should be holy and blameless before him in love. Eph 1:4”

Now, everybody and his brother recognizes the meaning of blame and blameless and so did you until you were trapped by your “yes” answer to my question. This kind of maneuvering on your part does a disservice to logic and truth in your argumentation.

Now to answer your question concerning being "in Christ." I have covered this issue with you in other threads and have explained the term “abide in Christ” as it is used by the apostle John in his letters. The word abide means to “remain” and John uses provisional terms like "if" over and over in teaching his listeners that they must “remain in Christ” to be saved. Here is an example: “Let what you heard from the beginning abide[remain] in you. **If **what you heard from the beginning abides[remains] in you, then you will abide[remain] in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.”

Paul does the same kind of thing and this is abundantly clear in his provisional statements such as:

Romans 11: 20-21
That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

2 Timothy 2: 11-13
The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;

Colossians 1: 21-23
And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, **provided that you continue **in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Please be advised that your cheap shot about a Greek Lexicon is out of place. I know the meaning of these scriptures and I have taken great pains to elaborate on the meaning and usage of the word blameless. You guys seem to be in denial…scripture clearly disagrees with your position.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Please be advised that your cheap shot about a Greek Lexicon is out of place. I know the meaning of these scriptures and I have taken great pains to elaborate on the meaning and usage of the word blameless. You guys seem to be in denial…scripture clearly disagrees with your position.

FYI, Pax, urging you to use a lexicon is not a cheap shot, but something that you should do.

Pax:

Just for your edification I’ll let you read what my Bamford’s Bible Dictionary says about the word. It says “without fault.” I checked the first usage of the word blameless in the NT. It is found in Luke 1:6 in reference to Elizabeth and Zachariah. This usage like all of the others I previously quoted refers to walking in obedience and not commiting sin. The following non-Catholic bible translations should help you see that point.

– Living Bible
Luke 1:6 Zacharias and Elizabeth were godly folk, careful to obey all of God’s laws in spirit as well as in letter.

– Weymouth’s New Testament
Luke 1:6 They were both of them upright before God, blamelessly obeying all the Lord’s precepts and ordinances.

I see; so Elizabeth and Zachariah were ”without sin”—anamartātos—and either one of them could have thrown the first stone (Jn 8:7)?

I thought that within your theology, only Jesus and Mary were without sin.

Blameless, and sinless, or without sin, are two different things, Pax; that should be evident to you from the passages you cited (cf 1 Jn 1:10); all of God’s dealings with people rest on the basis that we are all sinners in need of salvation (cf Rom 3:23).

Pax:

Disobedience is sin…being blameless is just the opposite. A person would not be blameless if they were disobedient.

A disobedient Christian is sinning, practically; but, he is blameless, positionally, in Christ.

Pax:

Interestingly enough Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary also defines blameless differently than you do and even makes a reference to scripture. Webster’s says the following:

Blameless: “without fault; innocent; guiltless; not meriting censure; irreproachable; spotless; unblemished.”

Blame: “fault; crime; sin; usage, That we should be holy and blameless before him in love. Eph 1:4”

Thanks, Pax, but I don’t let Webster’s define theological terms for me.

With respect to Eph 1:4, a Christian is holy and blameless before Him (the Father), because he chosen in Him (the Son).

Paul is talking about our position, and not our practice.

In Christ, the Christian is all that Christ is; that is why salvation is secure—the Christian has His perfect righteousness; the Chritsian can, and does, in his practice, fall short; nevertheless, his position cannot fall short because it is the same holy and blameless position that is Christ’s.