"Works" Salvation?

[Truthstalker]

Seems like a semantic issue here. just trying to wrap my mind around a gift being a reward for cooperation.

**Man is responsible to cooperate, correct?

God rewards man, for cooperation, correct?

But, it is a total gift??

Is man punished for not cooperating with grace?

Is man held responsible for not cooperting with grace?**

It seems you missed post 5:

from the Catechism:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

Quote:
2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning “favor,” “gratuitous gift,” “benefit.” 53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts. 59
2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am sure you are aware that a REWARD is NOT a gift.

Kaycee-

Don’t be so cryptic - it does not further our discussion.

What are you trying to get at here?

If you have a point - make it plainly.

 

[Bishopite]

That assumes that I am asking for a sign; no sign is necessary if one interprets the passage literally in its context.

How do “you” know the context?

 

[Bishopite]

I am sure you are aware that a REWARD is NOT a gift.

No atually that wouldn’t be true. If I did a good deed and turned in two criminals to the authorities and there was a reward for their arrest, then I would get a reward which IS a gift.

In the case of justification, the gift is God’s grace which precedes our faith and works (obedience), the reward is what God promises to those who obey by faith; the more we obey (cooperate) with God’s grace the more reward (meritum) He gives us, NOT because He is obligated to, but because God is a just and honorable God.
Even though the Pharisees didn’t actually completely obey the Torah just the appearences of obeying it, they still attempted to obligate God into saving them and that is where they went wrong. They obligated God to save them because of their own goodness, but who is good but God alone?

Catholicism doesn’t teach that we can in any way obligate God to save us. All Christians agree that we are at His mercy. God, however being just and honest and mercyful rewards (merits) us more grace when we, through our own volition and through faith, obey Him. We merit (remember the word “merit” means reward) more grace because of God’s promise to reward us. Paul says in Romans 1:5 “Through him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith, for the sake of his name, among all the Gentiles,”

Romans 16:26…"according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith,"

We must obey God in order to receive His reward of salvation but we can NEVER obligate God to save us as did the Pharisees.

 

[guanophore]

So, the commands of scripture, in order for you to believe them, must fit your logical and rational understanding before you’ll submit them, is that right?

Give me a logical and rational reasoning of how, and why one must eat the flesh and blood of Jesus to have life in themselves, please.

No, not at all. In order for me to believe them, all I need to do is choose to believe that Jesus meant what He said, and that if I want Life, I must follow. It makes no logical sense to me at all that if someone robs me or steals my stuff, I should give them more of my stuff. Or if someone smacks me, I should allow them to smack me a second time. Yet, these are His teachings. If you will only follow the teachings of Jesus if you can make rational sense out of it, then “you are of all men most to be pitied”. You wrote in another post that faith proceeds from reason, as though reason should be the basis of faith, and therefore, if things don’t make sense to you, you cannot believe.

 

[guanophore]

With respect to transubstantiation, it is irrational, and it is based upon a man’s philosophy, ie., word-wisdom.

God is not a God of confusion, neither is He a God of irrationality, and neither does He want His people to be fooled by man’s word-wisdom.

Therefore, whenever God, in history, performed a miracle, God’s miracle was observable; that is how God’s people knew that God had done it.

Transubstantiation is not observable, and therefore, it must be taken on faith; but faith in God is based on reason, not unobservable word-wisdom.

Hmmm. Did the Holy Spirit impregnate Mary? How come people supposed that Joseph was the father? Why was Joseph going to divorce her?

How come the disciples did not “see” or “feel” the power go out of Jesus when the woman with the issue of blood touched the hem of his garment?

How come the disciples could not figure our where the loaves and fishes were coming from when Jesus multiplied them?

Why did Jesus warn us about seeking signs, and bless those who had not seen, yet believe?

Yes most of His miracles had observable results, but not all. there are many “inner” healings that are impossible to see. One may see the fruits of them. Reliance upon your reason and your senses will only get you so far.

 

[guanophore]

I see; it’s all Calvin and Luther’s fault, because transubstantiation was accepted unanimously from the starting gate, by everyone, without discussion, and ultimately it awaited only its articulation by Aquinas’, and its approval by the General Council of Lateran.

Are you saying that the church, up until the time of the protestant reformation, did not believe in the Real Presence? Have you read the early fathers?

 

[Pax]

kaycee,

You have mentioned OSAS. If you are interested I will provide you with a refutation of the doctrine. OSAS is usually supported by reference to John 10:27-29 and 1 John 2:19 and it can be demonstrated that they do not do so. Moreover, I have researched over sixty passages of scripture that show that this is a false doctrine.

If you are interested in perusing these just send me a PM and your email address and I will gladly send them to you.

I extend the same invitation to Linkowski.

 

[Lazerlike42]

There was no one there, that’s for certain; however, I am here, and I can “see” the event through the eyes of the inspired writer. Augustine recognized that God understood that with respect to events, there would come a time—and a people—when there would be “nothing for them to touch, but something read.” So I am an observer of Gen 22 because God saw fit to have it written down (cf 1 Cor 10:1ff with v6; Heb 11).

Furthermore, in v18, the beginning of the faith passage, James says, “you show me…I’ll show you…you see…you see.” Obviously the passage is concerned with visible evidence of faith, the main character in the passage says he has faith, but, James asks, where’s the evidence of it?

James doesn’t say Abraham is justified by his works. He says Abraham was justified by his works. Certainly he *is *justified before men, but according to James he was justified at the time when nobody was around. The grammar doesn’t allow for this interpretation.

On top of this, Jesus taught rather harshly against being justified before men. He said to let our lights shine, but so that people would see His love and come to Him, not to justify ourselves before men. This latter idea He in no uncertain terms told us to avoid. If this interpretation were correct, then James would be exhorting us to violate Jesus’ commands. James is answering an imaginary interlocutor in order to teach that works are important in the life of a Christian, not literally asking someone to show their works.

AFA Abe’s faith being active, that is James’ point; The previously justified Abe demonstrated a faith that was not a said faith, but an active, saving faith (v18) which fulfilled the scriptural record in which Abe was stated to have been justified (v23 cf Gen 15:6 also Rom 4:3, 20-22; Gal 3:6).

The problem with this is that it contradicts James’ words. James identifies the faith and works as two seperate entities each of which are participating in the justification of the individual. He cannot simply be referring to a faith that works, because he seperates the two and attributes justification to each of them. He also says that Abraham’s faith was completed by his works, but a faith that works cannot be completed by works, because it already has works as a defining aspect of it. If you have to add works to faith to make it complete, that by definition means it is incomplete without works. If X is incomplete without Y, then X and Y must be seperate things, for if not, then Y would already be included in or produced by X and would not need to be added to it.

Also, Hebrews 11, in pointing to examples to follow of people with faith, points to Abraham as having faith back in Genesis 12. He was justified then, but St. Paul says he was justified in Genesis 15, and James points to Genesis 22. Even if we toss out James because of our disagreement, we nevertheless see that Abraham was in fact justified at least twice, proving at least one of the two ideas that either justification can be lost, or that it can increase.

 

[Lazerlike42]

In Romans 2, Paul’s assertions are of general principle: if someone were able to do good persistently (ie., keep all of the law, see v 7), that one would gain eternal life. But as Paul expands his argument, he makes it very clear that no one, since the fall, can, in fact, keep the law persistently (see 3:9–18, 23). So his purpose here is not to show how people can be saved, but to set forth the standards of God’s evaluation apart from the gospel. These standards are the same for everyone—whether they be Jews or Gentiles; there’s no partiality.

The problem with this is that St. Paul doesn’t say that Romans 2 only refers to a situation where someone is capable of keeping the whole law. This is read into the passage by those who do not believe works can increase justification.

In fact, this interpretation directly contradicts the very point you made earlier - neither the Mosaic law nor any other law posesses the power to justify. For St. Paul to be offering this teaching contradicts a lot of things. After all, the only reason Adam and Eve were just in the first place is that God made them that way. St. Paul can’t be teaching that in any situation, performing good works justifies, because this is never true, even before the fall. Whether Adam and Eve were created just and became unjust through sin or even if God created them unjust, they couldn’t have justified themselves by doing good either way.

An unjust person can never possibly be justified by works by the very fact that they are unjust. If St. Paul is talking about “if someone were able to do good persistently,” he is talking about a logically impossible situation, not merely one that is impossible by the current situation. He can’t be explaining how it would work if someone were able to do all these good things an keep the law perfectly, because that is not true - unless justification can increase. If justification is merely either/or, yes or no, and does not increase or decrease, then works can in *no *situation *ever *justify a person, because the only ones that are in need of justification are those who are in debt to God and whose works are of no value.

If you “see” eternal life in the inheritance, it is a gift associated with justification; justification is a gift.

I don’t just see eternal life in the inheritance, the Scriptures I provided identify the inheritence as eternal life and say they are a reward.

 

[Pax]

The argument that we are saved by faith “alone” is a fallacy. Nowhere in scripture do we read that phrase. We do, however, read an exact statement to the contrary in James 2:24.

Likewise scripture says many other things about how we are saved elsewhere in scripture.

Paul tells us in Romans 8:24 that “…we are saved by hope.” (KJV)

Everyone that has even the slightest grasp of the truth knows that we must love God in order to be saved. If a person does not love God they are at enmity with God and they are not saved. This can easily be verified by scripture. We are told in 1 Cor 8:3 that “…anyone that loves God is known by him.” If you are not known by God then you are not saved[per Matt7:23]. This is given even greater emphasis in 1 Cor 16:22 where Paul tells us, “Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord.”

Likewise, in James 1:12 we are told that “the crown of life is promised to those who love him[God].” This same statement is repeated in James 2:5.

So how do we abide, which means “to remain”, in God’s love? In John 15:10 it says that “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” Obviously, if we do not abide/remain in God’s love we are not saved.

Others on this thread have shown from scripture the role of baptism in salvation.

Obedience was also shown to be important to salvation. Scripture explicitly states that obedience is part of salvation in Hebrews 5:9 where it says:

“…and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,”

Then what about perseverence/endurance? Scripture says that endurance in necessary for salvation. We see this in the following:

Luke 21:19
By your endurance you will gain your souls.

Hebrews 10:36
“For you need endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.” The promise is eternal life.

We are also saved through sanctification. Scripture tells us this in:

Romans 6:22
…now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life.

2 Thess 2:13
But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit.

No reasonable person can read these scriptures and then claim that we are saved by faith alone.

 

[Zooey]

What specifically in my posts cause you to think I fail to understand the RC position of salvation?

http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/5.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/1.gif
http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/6.gif
Give me a chance here…hmmmm…
Oh, yeah, http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/8.gif:

[SIGN]
Everything!!
[/SIGN]

 

[heisenburg]

To Each of you in Christ…

If as espoused, If we are not judged on our obedience, but only on whether or not we believe, are you saying then that NOT being obedient is not a factor either?

So… We are to believe that what Christ says is true… but, we don’t have to follow him? Sounds to me like a great lie the devil has created…

Devil… say 30 BC… "This whole Christ thing is about to happen… I need to find me a new tool to trap souls…

1500 AD - “I’ve Got it… I’ll convince them that they don’t have to follow, only believe!.. And that in actuality… Following is anti-christian… Oh this is gunnu be great”

By the way… If either 1) Faith really is all we need 2) Faith will magically make us do, and it really isn’t us, but the HS doing it, or 3) Obedience is not required

Then that DOES raise questions about many verses… the following is only a sample of th verses that now have questions surrounding them… I wont post my questions for space purposes… But I promise, all this now have questions if obedience to the faith is not required… Didnt even mention the problems created in the gospels… but you get the idea…

Philemon 1:6,1 Thes 4:1,1 Thes 4:10,1 Thes 4:11,1 Thes 5:11,1 Thes 1:3,1 Thes 1:6,1 Thes 2:9,1 Thes 2:12,1 Thes 3:10,2 Thes 1:12,2 Thes 2:17,2 Thes 3:4,2 Thes 3:7,2 Thes 3:8,2 Thes 3:9
2 Thes 3:10,2 Thes 3:14,1 Tim 1:9,10,1 Tim 2:1,1 Tim 1:2,3,1 Tim 2:10,1 Tim 4:6,1 Tim 4:16,1 Tim 5:4,1 Tim 5:8,1 Tim 5:9,10,1 Tim 5:17,1 Tim 5:25,1 Tim 6:1,2,1 Tim 6:11,1Tim 6:14
1 Tim 6:18,19,2 Tim 2:6,2 Tim 2:15,2 Tim 2:21,2 Tim 2:22,2 Tim 3:2,2 tim 3:10,2 Tim 3:17,2 ,Tim 4:1,2,2 Tim 4:5,2 Tim 4:14,Titus 1:7,Titus 1:16,Titus 2:2-6,Titus 2:7,Titus 2:14,Titus 3:1,Titus 3:5,Titus 3:14,Heb 4:6,Romans 1:9,Romans 1:29-31,Romans 2:3,Romans 2:6,Romans 2:7,Romans 2:8,Romans 2:10,Romans 2:11,Romans 2:12,Romans 2:13,Romans 2:16,Romans 2:21-23,Romans 3:28,Romans 3:31
Romans 4:3,Romans 4:5,6,Romans 4:11,Romans 4:14,Romans 4:16,17,Romans 4:20,Romans 4:22,Romans 5:1,Romans 5:3,4,Romans 6:1,Romans 6:6,Romans 6:11,Romans 6:12,Romans 6:13,Romans 6:23,Heb 6:10,Heb 6:11,Romans 7:6
Romans 7:19,Romans 8:4,Romans 8:8,Romans 8:13,Romans 8:25,Romans 8:35-39,Romans 9:32,Romans 11:6,Hebrews 10:24,Hebrews 10:25,Hebrews 10:26,Romans 12:6,Romans 12:11,Romans 12:12,Romans 12:13,Romans 12:20,Romans 13:1,Romans 13:3,Romans 13:4,Romans 13:8-11,Romans 13:13

To Moderators… If I broke any rules… Just let em know and Ill fix…

In Christ

 

[Odell]

Also, Hebrews 11, in pointing to examples to follow of people with faith, points to Abraham as having faith back in Genesis 12. He was justified then, but St. Paul says he was justified in Genesis 15, and James points to Genesis 22. Even if we toss out James because of our disagreement, we nevertheless see that Abraham was in fact justified at least twice, proving at least one of the two ideas that either justification can be lost, or that it can increase.

could you point me to the verses or make this a little more clear I like the argument. But I would like to use it myself and need you to clearify it a little.

thanks

 

[Truthstalker]

As I understand it, our cooperation with God is the outcome of prevenient grace: without God getting in ahead of us, we would not cooperate. That cooperation is itself a gift from God. We can claim nothing, boast in nothing, do nothing in ourselves.

If someone believes in Christ, the credit goes to God. If the same person does not believe, it is their fault. The same parallel extends in cooperative acts with God. Merit is God rewarding man for what God has done. It is all gift.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Let’s look at a little “word wisdom” shall we? Let’s begin with the creation story. The earth was formless and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep.

Gen 1:3
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Word wisdom?

Gen 1:6
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

More “word wisdom”?

Gen 1:9-10
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

God said…and it was so.

Gen 1:11
And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so.

Sure seems like this word is awfully creative!

Gen 1:14-16
4 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

Matthew 16:23

But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan!..

 

[guanophore]

May the uninvited also partake of your reserach?

kaycee,

You have mentioned OSAS. If you are interested I will provide you with a refutation of the doctrine. OSAS is usually supported by reference to John 10:27-29 and 1 John 2:19 and it can be demonstrated that they do not do so. Moreover, I have researched over sixty passages of scripture that show that this is a false doctrine.

If you are interested in perusing these just send me a PM and your email address and I will gladly send them to you.

I extend the same invitation to Linkowski.

 

[sandusky]

To Each of you in Christ…

If as espoused, If we are not judged on our obedience, but only on whether or not we believe, are you saying then that NOT being obedient is not a factor either?

God commands obedience; show me one place where I have said that one can be disobedient; that is antinomianism.

That said, believers will sin, but their sin was dealt with at the cross—all of it (Col 2:13ff et al).

 

[sandusky]

“By faith we understand.” “Your flesh profits you nothing”

Truly.

That’s a little too cryptic for me; please elaborate.

 

[Odell]

God commands obedience; show me one place where I have said that one can be disobedient; that is antinomianism.

That said, believers will sin, but their sin was dealt with at the cross—all of it (Col 2:13ff et al).

why then do we still suffer for our sins?