Works salvation - the real question?

[Atemi]

If works are a litmus and determining factor in one’s salvation, then it is works salvation.

I don’t even know what it means to talk about a “determining factor”.

Catholics talk about it with me all the time.

You must do X amount of good works to be saved.

**Joint effort?

There is no effort we can supply that is salvific.**

Then you are denying that anything we do has any bearing on our salvation. That would including having faith in Christ.

Of course not.

Is faith an “effort”?

No.

Faith is surely not a work as the Scriptures make plain. The Word of God constantly contrasts faith and works.

And I know you don’t actually believe that, so why would you deny that we play any part in our own salvation?

I don’t.

If you had finished reading my post before responding, you would have seen that.

**
The Scriptures teach that true faith and repentance is our part. All the saving is His part. That is why He, and He alone, is the Savior.**

There can be no salvation without that faith and repentance, so why claim that it is not part of the act of saving?

I didn’t.

They are just not efforts. They are states of the heart, not good deeds that must be performed to merit eternal life from God.

Now I don’t deny, have never denied, that we can only come to that faith and repentance through grace, but nonetheless we can choose to act on that grace or to deny that grace. We can choose to do that which is required to be saved, or to not do it.

What is required according to the RC paradigm?

Good works.

How many and of what quality?

Nobody knows.

If it is of grace, it can never include good works.

You cannot say you are saved by grace and also by your good works. Choose one.

**Know what this means?

Catholicism is moot.

If a devout non-Catholic produces the same fruit a devout Catholic does, then the Vine is working just as effectively through both of them.

That is without Catechisms, rituals, Sacraments, RC Eucharist, and the Mass. **

Nah, this is an old Protestant argument.

The evidence bears this out. You testify to it yourself.

You made the argument, not any Protestant.

In essence it asks why seek more knowledge and communion with God than the very minimum? Why bother seeking out God to any greater degree than that which will get one into heaven?

Not at all.

What it does mean is that all the RC rituals and Sacraments do nothing else in producing good fruit. Protestants can produce the very same fruit without all the additions and religiosity.

You assume that these Protestants that are producing such fruit through the Vine are not attached as close to God. Not possible, sorry.

How can they produce such fruit if they are not totally connected to the Vine? Have you not read our Lord’s own explanation on how this works?

Like I said, you testify against yourself here.

You admit that the lifestyle of the devout Protestant and the devout Catholic look similar. You are right. The common denominator there is what? Devout Protestants commune with God at “the very minimum” but are producing the same fruits as Catholics who are supposedly communing with God at peak effectiveness?

LOL, no.

Christ explained about the Vine and branches. Only those deep in Him can produce His fruit like that. No “very minimum” here.

The answer should be obvious to all.

One would think.

**
Telling people they must do some unknown number or quality of works to be saved is one thing.
To tell people that they must repent and believe to be saved is another.**

What a hoary old chestnut. I can just as easily rephrase your second item as “To tell people that they must have some unknown degree of repentance and some unknown degree of faith to be saved.”

You either have faith in Christ’s finished work or you do not. You are either repentant or you are not.

Not so with works.

What works must we do to be saved?

Catholic answer?

“We don’t know. Good luck.”

And you know that is true, because you know that a good many Protestants worry whether they are “really saved” and choose to “get saved” over and over again as a result of that worry.

You mistake the frailties of people’s understandings to the actual realities at hand.

How many Catholics slip into some form of doubt believing that they must confess this and that or they lost their salvation?

It is so common, the RCC gave it a name.

No. Cathoolics in general know what it means to be contrite in the Sacrmanet with no foolish talk of “degrees.” You are either contrite or you are not. This is basic.

Not so with good works.

…

 

[Nita]

Catholics talk about it with me all the time.

You must do X amount of good works to be saved.

…

Hi Atemi,

Been a Catholic for many many years, read lots of books, talked to lots of Catholics - but failed to learn we “must do X amount of good works to be saved.”
Before I die and it’s too late, how many does X equal???

Nita

 

[Church_Militant]

Catholics talk about it with me all the time.

You must do X amount of good works to be saved.

Show me that in an authentic authoritative Catholic teaching document. I don’t think you can, but you love to quote those Catholics that you find who don’t know what they are talking about as if they are the authority.

Faith is surely not a work as the Scriptures make plain. The Word of God constantly contrasts faith and works.

Yeah, but most n-Cs will readily ignore or disregard the following verse. James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? and God forbid I should mention (again) Matthew 25:31-46.

I don’t think the Catholic doctrine needs defense as much as the unscriptural and errant new wind of doctrine that is Sola Fide, which really does constitute a different and deficient gospel.

What is required according to the RC paradigm?

** How Is A Catholic Saved?**

Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38 & 22:16) and then following Christ, (John 14:15, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, & 25:31-46, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) which is a lifelong journey and not the oversimplified “plan of salvation” as presented by some non-Catholic communities.

If it is of grace, it can never

include good works.The different gospel according to Atemi…

You cannot say you are saved by grace and also by your good works. Choose one.

Good works do not “save”, but we certainly are judged by them according to the very words of Christ Himself.

What it does mean is that all the RC rituals and Sacraments do nothing else in producing good fruit. Protestants can produce the very same fruit without all the additions and religiosity.

In your biased anti-Catholic opinion…What else is new?

This is nothing but a rash generalization without any real substance. See it for what it is fellow Catholics…

You admit that the lifestyle of the devout Protestant and the devout Catholic look similar. You are right. The common denominator there is what? Devout Protestants commune with God at "the very minimum

" but are producing the same fruits as Catholics who are supposedly communing with God at peak effectiveness?I’d disagree with this. Especially since this is not the case in my own experience. (See, I can use that same subjective and unverifiable argument against you. Doesn’t work, does it. :dts:

You either have faith in Christ’s finished work or you do not. You are either repentant or you are not.

:yawn: Sounds just like a lot of the street evangelists that I have encountered…running off that same over-simplified (and different) gospel.

How many Catholics slip into some form of doubt believing that they must confess this and that or they lost their salvation?

Completely off topic and irrelevant.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Atemi,

Been a Catholic for many many years, read lots of books, talked to lots of Catholics - but failed to learn we “must do X amount of good works to be saved.”
Before I die and it’s too late, how many does X equal???

Nita

 

[JPatton]

• Telling people they must do some unknown number or quality of works to be saved is one thing.
• To tell people that they must repent and believe to be saved is another.

This cannot not be talked about.
…

I think it is simple. I can see it clear as day. To repent is to DO something. It is a WORK. To follow God’s commandments is a WORK. I think everyone would agree we must follow God’s law to be saved. The message throughout the bible is Repent and be Baptised. Not just have Faith. When the rich man ask Jesus what can he do to have eternal life Jesus did’nt say have faith. He said follow the commandments. Doing something. Even when he said he followed them and asked what else should he do, Jesus said give away your treasures and follow me. Doing something. Being obedient to God is a work. That IS simple logic. Saved by Grace through Faith and Works that are only possible by Grace. We must turn away from sin. Turning away is a Work. As a man living in this sinfull society I must everyday make that decision to not be apart of this culture. It’s everywhere. Sex, porn, drugs, lustfull ways, improper situations, dishonesty, you name it. I have to turn away from that everyday. You know, pick up my cross daily. I’m here to say that is work! But that work is only possible by God’s grace! That in no way takes away from what Christ did for us! We must have Faith first and without Faith we have nothing, but Faith Alone? Not found or supported by in scripture. Faith,Hope and Love - and the greatest of these is “Faith”? No it is Love, an action, something that we do.(1 Cor 13) What did St. Paul say? - “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12) Maybe the term “WORK” is offending and hard to swollow. I don’t know. What I do know is I’m not even Catholic (yet) and I can see this one clear. This is one of my top three reasons why I find truth in the Catholic Church.

God Bless You All,
Jamie

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

And thank you for acknowledging that the true position of the Catholic Church can more accurately be describe as obedience salvation (through grace of course, but both sides accept that so both sides can leave that out without misunderstanding).

Works/righteous by any other name is still works/righteousness, and thank you for not denying that—at least not yet.

VociMike:

Those are meaningless terms, invented by Protestants simply to differentiate their beliefs from Catholic (and Orthodox) beliefs. They have no actual meaning beyond what a particular Protestant claims they mean.

That’s funny; the Catholic, and later Protestant reformers were trained and educated Catholic theologians, and generations of people, in ensuing centuries have found great meaning, great joy, and great hope, in their re-discovery of the true gospel.

VociMike:

So let’s talk instead about whether you believe or disbelieve in obedience salvation.

As Paul says, "…if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been out of law”—IOW, if only a law had been given for obedience salvation, then salvation would be by obedience.

 

[VociMike]

Works/righteous by any other name is still works/righteousness, and thank you for not denying that—at least not yet.

I refuse to say anything about your phrase until you state clearly and precisely what it means. So far it’s nothing more than a slogan.

As Paul says, "…if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been out of law”—IOW, if only a law had been given for obedience salvation, then salvation would be by obedience.

So you deny that obedience plays any part in salvation? That’s really the question here. Both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that grace is paramount. Both acknowledge that faith is necessary. So the only remaining question is whether obedience is also necessary (where obedience is possible, needless to say).

Make a simple declarative statement. Either obedience, where possible, is necessary for salvation, or obedience, where possible, is not necessary for salvation.

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

I refuse to say anything about your phrase until you state clearly and precisely what it means. So far it’s nothing more than a slogan.

You stick to your guns, Mike, and claim ignorance; what I’ve said is difficult to understand.

VociMike:

So you deny that obedience plays a part in salvation?

That’s is bait-and-switch, Mike; I answered your original question, which was:

So let’s talk instead about whether you believe or disbelieve in obedience salvation.

I answered that.

VociMike:

That’s really the question here.

That’s a different question than the one you asked originally.

VociMike:

Both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that grace is paramount. Both acknowledge that faith is necessary.

That’s never been an issue; the issue with grace is whether or not grace, in and of itself, is sufficient to save—that’s the issue with grace.

VociMike:

So the only remaining question is whether obedience is also necessary (where obedience is possible, needless to say).

Make a simple declarative statement. Either obedience, where possible, is necessary for salvation, or obedience, where possible, is not necessary for salvation.

What do you mean by ”where obedience is necessary where possible, needless to say?”

 

[VociMike]

You stick to your guns, Mike, and claim ignorance; what I’ve said is difficult to understand.

So say it again. Say “Works salvation is…” and complete the sentence. And I bet what you say won’t be what the Church teaches.

That’s is bait-and-switch, Mike; I answered your original question, which was:I answered that.

That’s a different question than the one you asked originally.

It’s the question I’m asking now.

That’s never been an issue; the issue with grace is whether or not grace, in and of itself, is sufficient to save—that’s the issue with grace.

Oh? Can grace save without faith?

What do you mean by ”where obedience is necessary where possible, needless to say?”

Because obedience would typically (I won’t say always) require physical action, and a person may be prevented from that physical action. Thief on the cross, etc. But the vast majority of Christians are not thieves on crosses, and for the vast majority of Christians obedience is possible. So for Christians for whom obedience is possible, is it also a necessary component of their salvation?

 

[LumberGumRubber]

I’m starting a new thread on this just because the current thread is so long I’m lost.
Anyway, it seems to me that there is one fundamental question at the bottom of all this “works salvation” talk. That question involves the matter of who takes part in our salvation. It seems that there are three answers to that question:

1. It is all us. That would be works salvation.
2. It is all God. That would be Calvinism, I think.
   .

Mike, forgive me for coming in on this a bit late. Salvation has been provided for all, not through the so called Catholic church of protestant church(es) but rather through the Crosswork of the Lord’s Christ, i.e. “He gave Himself a ransom for all” 1Tim 2:6.

That is the provision, but that doesn’t save anyone. The fountain of cleansing has been set up for the sons of men to be saved, and now how does one come into the good of that?

It is but a genuine repentance from sin / preconceived ideas, and faith placed alone in the Person of Christ and His finished work, i.e. “God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” and only one time was the question asked in the whole of the Bible, “what must I do to be saved” … and the answer was simply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” …

This shall be something for to consider sir …

 

[Atemi]

Hi Atemi,

Been a Catholic for many many years, read lots of books, talked to lots of Catholics - but failed to learn we “must do X amount of good works to be saved.”

Sure you have.

We see it posted here just about every day.

Every Catholic knows that the RCC teaches that good works are necessary for salvation. She plainly teaches that good works are required or you cannot be saved.

Justified by your works, remember? (see James 2)

Guess not.

Catholics tell me this all the time. That is what I was taught as an RC.

Obviously, if the Christian does no good works they cannot be saved…and if all they do is good works all the time, then they have a very good shot at it.

Somewhere in there is the quota for good works necessary to justify you before God.

How many is it? What kinds?

RC answer I got as a Catholic?

“Just do your best and cross your fingers. Maybe you’ll make it into Purgatory”

Before I die and it’s too late, how many does X equal???

Let’s just assume you may die today.

Have you done enough good works to justify you before a Holy God?

• If yes…how do you know?
• If no…how do you know and doesn’t that frighten you?
• If you don’t know…that is my point.

We can start there.

…

 

[Atemi]

**Catholics talk about it with me all the time.

You must do X amount of good works to be saved.**

Show me that in an authentic authoritative Catholic teaching document.

I simply put it in layman’s terms, Michael.

Tell us: can a Christian be saved who does no good works?

Faith is surely not a work as the Scriptures make plain. The Word of God constantly contrasts faith and works.

Yeah, but most n-Cs will readily ignore or disregard the following verse.

Faith is a work?

Is that your position?

Please show us that in an authentic authoritative Catholic teaching document.

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

So a man is justified by God by his good works but not saved by those same works.

That is senseless.

Justified but unsaved.

No, Michael.

and God forbid I should mention (again) Matthew 25:31-46.

Must all those deeds be accomplished by all Catholics to be saved?

How many times in a lifetime?

Catholic answer?

What is required according to the RC paradigm?

How Is A Catholic Saved?

Repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38 & 22:16) and then following Christ, (John 14:15, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, & 25:31-46, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) which is a lifelong journey and not the oversimplified “plan of salvation” as presented by some non-Catholic communities.

Totally vague.

What did Paul say to the jailor who asked that very same question?

Thank God for His wonderful “oversimplified” plan. If it wasn’t for that, none of us would have any hope.

If it is of grace, it can never include good works.

The different gospel according to Atemi…

Please open the Book which talks about this Gospel, Michael:

Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast”

Rom 11:6 “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace”

Paul knew his Gospel.

If by works…not by grace.

You cannot say you are saved by grace and also by your good works. Choose one.

Good works do not “save”, but we certainly are judged by them according to the very words of Christ Himself.

They do not “save” yet they justify you before God?

Not possible.

Who are these justified who are unsaved?

And why put save in quotes? Is that a strange word?

…

 

[Church_Militant]

I simply put it in layman’s terms, Michael.

Tell us: can a Christian be saved who does no

good works?No… you didn’t… you put it into your personal biased interpretation, which is anything but what the New Testament and the Catholic Church teaches.

You claim to know what the church teaches but you do nothing but quote non authoritative sources as if they have some bearing on the topic under discussion. That means that you (for whatever reason) misrepresent authentic Catholic teaching and in effect create your arguments from nothing at all.

Faith is a work

?

Is that your position?Is it? I don’ t recall saying that anywhere…

Please show us that in an authentic authoritative Catholic teaching document.

Sorry… you made the allegation that that was what Catholics are taught and believe, so the burden of proof falls to you. I will not do your homework for you.

So a man is justified

by God by his good works but not saved by those same works.

That is senseless.

Justified but unsaved.That’s your problem. If the Testament teaches something and the Catholic Church also teaches it, if you find it a hard saying, then whose fault is that?

I’ve already told you that you have believed a different and deficient gospel.

No, Michael.

Yes, whatever-your-name-is.

Must all those deeds be accomplished by all Catholics to be saved?

How many times in a lifetime?

Suggest you take that up with Our Lord Himself since it is His teaching and not that of some errant man. This is precisely why your gospel is different and deficient because it does not teach the truth in its fullness.

Catholic answer?

According to you you know all there is to know about the Catholic faith. You are the hotshot “ex-Catholic” that is all set to straighten all us Catholics out. Frankly, I don’t see where you know which end’s up so far as Catholicism is concerned because I’ve proved you wrong all over the place here and still you keep on spouting the same ole stuff.

Making remarks and allegations that you never offer real substance on. It’s always, “My Catholic relatives or friends say thus and so” blah blah blah. Yet when someone points out that your relatives & friends (if they really did say any of those things, which is always subject to some doubt in a forum) are not correct according to authentic Catholic teaching, you try to act like you made a valid argument.

Totally vague.

Which is better than deficient and in violation of the Word of God. I’m not going to honor your remark here because I and the other faithful Catholics on this thread have been quite concise in their responses to you. The only vagueness is in that wishful thinking that you nurture.

What did Paul say to the jailor who asked that very same question?

So…there are several options here.

1. Peter and the apostles preached a different Gospel on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:37-38.
2. Paul was presented with a different Gospel at his conversion is Acts 22:16
3. Paul then preached another different gospel to that Philippian jailer.
4. Or you do not believe the same Gospel that is plainly expressed in the full context of the New Testament, was preached by the apostles (which they received from the Lord Himself!)

Now are we to believe that St. Peter and the the apostles converted some 3,000 people on Pentecost to an errant Gospel and St. Paul converted to that same errant gospel and then preached something else later on? I don’t think so. The fact is that the problem is that what you believe and preach is different from what they preached and if I have to rest confidence in someone, who do you suppose that will be?

Thank God for His wonderful “oversimplified” plan. If it wasn’t for that, none of us would have any hope.

And therein is your whole problem. You want a simplicity that appeals to your own (and other errant men’s) rationality and not the one that the New Testament really teaches. This has been the same error for the last 500 years.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Please open the Book which talks about this Gospel, Michael:

Eph 2:8 "For it is by grace

you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast"

Rom 11:6 “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace”

Paul knew his Gospel.

If by works…not by grace.Oh, I may faint with joy! You finally broke out a scripture or two.

However, are you now saying that Our Lord and the other apostles did not “know their Gospel”. The point is that you can quote these verses till hell freezes over and it does not change the fact that they are only two verses in the entire New Testament context of teaching about salvation.

They have been ripped from the pages of the Word of God and bandied about in the last 500 years to further a different and oversimplified deficient Gospel that anyone who sits down and reads the New Testament for themselves without some n-C preacher breathing down their neck every Sunday and Wednesday will soon discover is not the same Gospel of salvation.

I have read the Word of God many times and that is why I am a Catholic. The salvation message of the Catholic Church is in line with the teachings of the New Testament, and I believe that the salvation message of the majority of n-Cs is some different gospel, condemned by St. Paul and leads to something that I have dubbed “Christianity Lite”.

They do not “save” yet they justify

you before God?

Not possible.In your mistaken opinion…but you wrongly claim that you believe a New Testament gospel when in fact you do not.

The fact that what I believe and am taught as a Catholic differs from that is not a source of any consternation to me. In fact it is all the more assurance that I am following the original full gospel New Testament Christianity.

Who are these justified who are un

saved?Not an assertion that I have made, therefore I will not waste a response.

And why put save

in quotes? Is that a strange word?Simple… because your usage of that word means something different than what the Word of God teaches as well as the Catholic Church.

Am I the only one who sees a desperate effort to present n-C teaching as scriptural and correct when it flies in the face of the whole context of the New Testament?

My dear Catholic brothers and sisters, this is why we cannot agree with Atemi’s gospel. Read your New Testament from cover to cover and see what the teachings are concerning salvation and then compare the various n-C “ways” and “plans” of salvation with what you have read and see if the Holy Spirit does not show you the deficiencies and differences between the two.

They stop far short of what the New Testament Gospel is while the teachings of the Catholic Church are in fact right in line with it.

 

[VociMike]

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Now tell me that obedience (where obedience is possible) is not a necessary component of salvation.

 

[Nita]

Hi Atemi,

Atemi;3053294]Sure you have.

We see it posted here just about every day.

No I haven’t. I’ve seen all the accusations that we teach works are what save, etc. but I’ve never seen that we teach X number of works must be done. That’s why it struck me - as ridiculous and funny - and I decided to respond.

Every Catholic knows that the RCC teaches that good works are necessary for salvation. She plainly teaches that good works are required or you cannot be saved.

Justified by your works

, remember? (see James 2)

Guess not.

Catholics tell me this all the time. That is what I was taught as an RC.

Obviously, if the Christian does no good works they cannot be saved…and if all they do is good works all the time, then they have a very good shot at it.

Somewhere in there is the quota for good works necessary to justify you before God.

How many is it? What kinds?

"[/INDENT]

Saying “works are necessary” IS NOT the same thing as saying “works save”.

Catholicism teaches that grace alone saves; it is the presence of sanctifying grace in our soul that is the “criteria” (my word) which determines whether or not we enter heaven. It is freely given in Baptism; no good works are required to receive it.

If a baptized baby (who cannot possibly perform a good work or make a profession of faith) dies, he will go to heaven because of God’s grace present in his soul. The same would hold true for an adult were he to die immediately after being baptized. So, yes, it is possible for a Christian to go to heaven who has done no good works - other than the good work of being baptized (and for the adult also a profession of faith).

Now, if you are living your life, and trying to follow God’s commands, then you are doing “works” - for **that is what “works” are - namely, doing the things God commands/wants us to do in the way He wants us to do them **(that is, for the right reasons). We are able to do this only because of His grace present in our souls strengthening us and guiding us.

I am really curious.

1. Do you believe the only thing necessary for eternal life in heaven is a profession of faith in Jesus?
2. Do you really believe that you can:
   *knowingly and willfully disobey the “serious” commands God has given,
   *continue to indulge in those sin/s (eg. Gal 5:19-21),
   *not repent when you do,
   *and still believe that on judgement day God will look at your soul ignoring its rebellious sinful state and declare: “you are righteous in my sight; come into heaven.”?

If you don’t believe the above, if you believe we must try to obey God’s commands, then you believe in “works” the way Catholicism teaches works.

I really hope you will respond to the above questions because it’s something I’ve always wondered about OSAS believers. My understanding is that that is what they really believe. I’m not asking the questions to be provocative, but because I really want to know.

Let’s just assume you may die today.

Have you done enough good works to justify you before a Holy God?

• If yes…how do you know?
• If no…how do you know and doesn’t that frighten you?
• If you don’t know…that is my point.

As to the judgement of my soul, that is for God to do. It is actually one of the things he told us not to do “Judge not…”

Since I am unaware of any serious unrepented sin in my life, were I to die right now, I would have every reason to hope and trust in God’s loving acceptance of me.

Does it frighten me? Not in the way I think you’re implying. It frightens me only in the sense that I know how important it is to my salvation to obey God. Hell is frightening. But I don’t spend my time thinking about hell - but rather about trying to live my day the way God wants me to.

Nita

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

So say it again. Say “Works salvation is…” and complete the sentence. And I bet what you say won’t be what the Church teaches.

And I bet that your long-in-coming denial is just around the corner.

VociMike:

Oh? Can grace save without faith?

That brings us back to the necessity of grace; isn’t God’s grace that which gives life (Eph 2:4-5) through faith (2:8), and that (the grace, faith, life, salvation), ouk ek humōn (not out from you), but rather, is a gift from God (v8 again)?

Can faith come apart from grace?

VociMike:

Because obedience would typically (I won’t say always) require physical action, and a person may be prevented from that physical action. Thief on the cross, etc.

Now you are excepting some from obedience; who else would you except from obedience; who are the ”etc” that you would also except?

VociMike:

But the vast majority of Christians are not thieves on crosses, and for the vast majority of Christians obedience is possible.

But all of them were once “thieves on crosses,” and thus the necessity of grace, and because the principles of evil and sin are still present within the regenerate, the sufficiency of grace. Grace is not about perfection; that’s why it’s grace.

VociMike:

So for Christians for whom obedience is possible, is it also a necessary component of their salvation?

"…if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been out of law”—IOW, if only a law had been given for “obedience salvation,” then salvation would be by obedience, instead of grace, "by grace you have been sesōmenoi", [saved] (Eph 2:4, 8)—a perfect, passive, participle—the same verb form as ”kekaritōmene” (Lk 1:28).

VociMike:

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

Now tell me that obedience (where obedience is possible) is not a necessary component of salvation.

That doesn’t help you. The Greek word translated “obey” carries the meaning of the “refusal to believe,” that is the “disobedience” spoken of in the passage—the refusal to believe the kerygma. That Greek word is often used as the antithesis of “belief” as it is in this passage
(cf Acts 14:1ff; 1 Pet 2:7ff).

The KJV, as well as the NKJV translate the word as “believe.”

Even your Catholic Bible, Douay-Rheims translates the passage that way:**He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him.

—Jn 3:36 D-R**

 

[VociMike]

And I bet that your long-in-coming denial is just around the corner.

Ever hear the term Johnny One-Note?

That brings us back to the necessity of grace; isn’t God’s grace that which gives life (Eph 2:4-5) through faith (2:8), and that (the grace, faith, life, salvation), ouk ek humōn (not out from you), but rather, is a gift from God (v8 again)?

Can faith come apart from grace?

Neither faith nor obedience can come apart from grace, as both you and we know.

Now you are excepting some from obedience; who else would you except from obedience; who are the ”etc” that you would also except?

Just as most Protestants except some from faith. Unless you’re one of those Pharasitical few who condemn all infants and mentally incompetent to hell.

But all of them were once “thieves on crosses,” and thus the necessity of grace, and because the principles of evil and sin are still present within the regenerate, the sufficiency of grace. Grace is not about perfection; that’s why it’s grace.

OK, but this has nothing to do with the discussion. Nobody is questioning the paramounce of grace.

That doesn’t help you. The Greek word translated “obey” carries the meaning of the “refusal to believe,” that is the “disobedience” spoken of in the passage—the refusal to believe the kerygma. That Greek word is often used as the antithesis of “belief” as it is in this passage
(cf Acts 14:1ff; 1 Pet 2:7ff).

The KJV, as well as the NKJV translate the word as “believe.”

Even your Catholic Bible, Douay-Rheims translates the passage that way:He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him.

—Jn 3:36 D-R

Research the Greek. It’s about both belief and obedience. It’s not even the same word as that used earlier in the verse for “believe”.

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

Ever hear the term Johnny One-Note?

How could I not? You exemplify the term.

VociMike:

Neither faith nor obedience can come apart from grace, as both you and we know.

Therefore, God’s grace is not only the necessary cause of faith, but it is the sufficient cause as well (cf Rom 8:29-39; 1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:3ff; 1 Pet 1:3ff, etc.).

VociMike:

Just as most Protestants except some from faith. Unless you’re one of those Pharasitical few who condemn all infants and mentally incompetent to hell.

Not at all; that’s why grace is sufficient; prior to belief, everyone, according to the testimony, is as mentally and spiritually incapacitated as those you except, thus, again, not only is grace necessary, but grace is sufficient as well.

VociMike:

Research the Greek. It’s about both belief and obedience. It’s not even the same word as that used earlier in the verse for “believe”.

I know the Greek; that’s why I made the point—the obedience spoken of in that passage, as well as in others I cited, has to do with obedience to the gospel command to repent, and believe; that’s God’s command to all people—repent, believe (Acts 17:30ff; cf 4:12)!

Remember how your approved, Catholic Bible, Douay-Rheims translates the passage:

He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him.

—Jn 3:36 D-R

Is it your opinion that your approved, Catholic Bible errs in its translation of the verse?

Pay attention to the parallelism in Jn 3:36.

 

[LumberGumRubber]

Sandusky, a low bow of greeting right into your direction O such an one! You have given a good reply in your posting.

You have stated “Is it your opinion that your approved, Catholic Bible errs in its translation of the verse? Pay attention to the parallelism in Jn 3:36” (end quote)

Jn 3:36(a) is descriptive of one who is truly born again / saved. This one has come into the good of a finished work by the Christ of God on Calvary. Consequently, the one who has taken God at His Word regarding His Son is that one who has eternal live.

Jn 3:36(b) is the one who is disobedient (unpersuasive / not allowing oneself to be persuaded / not to comply with / refuse or withhold belief in) and consequently this one does not have eternal life. Rather, this one has the wrath of God hanging over his head.

To suggest (or insist) that one must lead an obedient life for an entrance into God’s heaven is erroneous. Life eternal does not come through Catholicism / Protestantism, but rather is based upon the finished work of Christ, i.e. 1Tim 2:6 and man comes into the good of it by a genuine repentance, Acts 3:19 & faith in a crucified and resurrected Christ, Jn 3:36.

An acid test to see who has life can be seen in this …

1. those who are leaning on what they do or fail to do (religion / works etc) do not know and will have to admit that they do not know for sure they have everlasting life. Everlasting life by the way is not something one has for today and also might loose today.
2. those who have genuinely abandoned their religion / works / efforts and have solely trusted the Lord’s Christ as Saviour are those who know they have eternal life … a life that only God can give and the receiving individual cannot lose.

Somewhat for to consider …

(For all those who cannot see this posting, would you be so kind as to report that to me immediately)