"Works" Salvation?

[Sean_Boyle]

That is too scary to contemplate…better to stone us than to join us.

Or they could try not feeding us and watching as we starve after a potato famine. Oh my fault, they already tried that, still didn’t work. Happy St. Patrick’s Day!!!

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Let’s be precise.

1. The Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote the books and letters of the New Testament.
2. These authors were members of what was referenced in writing as early as 107 A.D. as the Catholic Church - a fact which indicates that it was known by that name probably during the lifetime of John the Apostle.
3. After carefully and prayerfully considering all of the available books and letters that were in circulation in the first three centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church infallibly recognized and canonized those books that were and are to be held as “God-breathed” scripture.
4. When Martin Luther attempted to remove certain books from his German edition of the Bible, his course of action was stayed in part by his own associates in recognition of the fact that the canon established by the Catholic Church was without error.
5. No Christian denomination today accepts any canon of the New Testament other than that which was infallibly established by the Catholic Church.

Therefore, it is rightly said that the Catholic Church wrote, canonized and preserved the Bible from Apostolic times to our own present day under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To claim anything else is to be ignorant of history or willfully in error.

Finally, the existence of a Catholic Church led by the Spirit of God has significant implications for those who seek to deny her primacy and authority.

Excellent history summary of the bible!

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Good works come into play after we are saved and not before or even during salvation.
This always gets my goat whenever I read it.

Looking at it, we can say then that the Hindu does not do anything good, since he is not saved. Ditto for the Muslim, or the Buddhist, etc.

The teaching of the Church (Catholic) is that if one is “good” one may be graced by God with salvation.

Thus,… no one is left out.

The point of being a member of the Church is that it gives one the BEST chance of salvation because it the most FULL measure of faith available.

That is simply illogical, and does not jive at all with common sense and experience. I see many Muslims who do a lot of good than the average Christian does. I see a lot of so-called born again Christians who are lying, womanizing, gossiping leeches.

Salvation is ALWAYS a matter between an individual and God.

He who is worthy in God’s eye will be saved, and all others will not be. Period.

So be good,… and it might be wise to find the best resource available for finding out how to be faithful to God.

There must be something very wrong with this kind of thinking to delude one’s self into thinking that he can only do good after he’s saved…or even think he’s exempt from doing anything good because he is saved.

If you think you can’t be condemned after being “saved”, you suffer from an illness.

If you only do good because you think you can “bargain with God” for salvation, then you suffer from another illness.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Really?! where did it come from?

OOP…!!

Silly me…!

Love 'ya Guano…!! I apparently can’t see very well…!!

(( Yikes! ))

 

[kaycee]

Let’s be precise.

1. The Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote the books and letters of the New Testament.

Score 1 for God

1. These authors were members of what was referenced in writing as early as 107 A.D. as the Catholic Church - a fact which indicates that it was known by that name probably during the lifetime of John the Apostle.

Catholic as in universal as in Known by God.

1. After carefully and prayerfully considering all of the available books and letters that were in circulation in the first three centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church infallibly recognized and canonized those books that were and are to be held as “God-breathed” scripture.

The sheep hear his voice, but the sheep are not infallible

1. When Martin Luther attempted to remove certain books from his German edition of the Bible, his course of action was stayed in part by his own associates in recognition of the fact that the canon established by the Catholic Church was without error.

The majority view of the church was that the Apocrapha was not God Breathed but good for reading. This is the view from Jerome to Catejan.

**The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. **

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
forthcoming mandatory anti-catholic ad hom not withstanding.

1. No Christian denomination today accepts any canon of the New Testament other than that which was infallibly established by the Catholic Church.

I can live with fallibly received.

Therefore, it is rightly said that the Catholic Church wrote, canonized and preserved the Bible from Apostolic times to our own present day under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To claim anything else is to be ignorant of history or willfully in error.

The Church did not write the Bible per se, but was certainly used to recognize the Master’s voice. I think history is the last place you want to go.

Finally, the existence of a Catholic Church led by the Spirit of God has significant implications for those who seek to deny her primacy and authority.

So are we no longer seperated brethren?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Score 1 for God

No issue there.

Catholic as in universal as in Known by God.

Of course it is.

The sheep hear his voice, but the sheep are not infallible

The Church’s soul is the Holy Spirit the divine half of the Church. When the Church declared that God is a Triune God in 325 A.D, it became official. So yes, when it comes to teaching MORAL AND FAITH Issue it is infallible. The Church leaders however are not promised impeccable which many of you Protestants seem the Church to have.

The majority view of the church was that the Apocrapha was not God Breathed but good for reading. This is the view from Jerome to Catejan.

**The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. **

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage

But do these bishop spoke in behave of the Church. The final authority which declared these books to inspired was Pope Damasus I in 382 A.D, his successor also agree with those list of canon.
Jimmy Akin:

The authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

The Church’s Magisterium declared these to be part of Canon. Even though the opinions did not agree. If you stick with the opinions of the Bishops at the time, then you must as well remove the **Book of Revelation **since many of the Bishop did not believe it to be inspired! The Church in union with the Pope declared those 7 Books inspired.

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
forthcoming anti-catholic ad hom not withstanding.

I can live with fallibly received.

The Church did not write the Bible per se, but was certainly used to recognize the Master’s voice. I think history is the last place you want to go.

So are we no longer seperated brethren?

The Church compelled the list of the Bible. This goes with Scripture since Jesus declared onto the Apostle.

“He who hears you, hears me.”

and

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bind in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.”

God spoke through the Church when they canonized Scripture. Jesus also said, whenever they are gather in My Name, I am there in their midst."

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…
Quote:
Finally, the existence of a Catholic Church led by the Spirit of God has significant implications for those who seek to deny her primacy and authority.
So are we no longer seperated brethren?

The serious implications are that it’s “harder” for non-Catholics to do what needs to be done to be saved.

Do you WANT to be “seperated brethren”, or not?

It’s your choice, as you are the one who continually “takes the action” of seperating from the Church.

We’d be more than happy to have you back…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[guanophore]

That is why Christ died on the cross for us. He payed the sin/death penalty for us that we so richly deserved because of our sin. The very last thing that Christ stated on the cross was *"it is finished." *This means that work of salvation is completed for us. Now, as a result, God can offer salvation as a free gift. He has already payed the sin price for us with the death of Christ on the cross. We accept this free gift through our faith in Chirst. When we do this we are saved forever.

I think this is true, that if we put our faith in Christ, and His sacrifice on the cross, we are saved forever. But I also think this has to be done daily, throughout life. Recognizing that Jesus paid the penalty for sin, and actually living out that belief are a long way apart. the Devil knows and also believes that Jesus died for our sins on the cross.

Read this passage over and over again and notice the negative relationship between faith and works for salvation in
verses 8,9.
Eph 2:1-10
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins , 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ ( by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works , so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
NASU

I am sorry that you are reading this over and over to find the negative relationship here. It seems clear to me that the last verse settles the controversy. Jesus saved us for good works, that He prepared before hand, that we would walk in them. What will it profit us to fail in that? He didn’t save us so we could sit around and sing about it, although there is nothing wrong with that. He saved us so that we could walk in good works. Why is that so difficult?

 

[kaycee]

But do these bishop spoke in behave of the Church. The final authority which declared these books to inspired was Pope Damasus I in 382 A.D, his successor also agree with those list of canon.

**Does a Pope outrank a Bishop?

Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:**

The Church’s Magisterium declared these to be part of Canon. Even though the opinions did not agree. If you stick with the opinions of the Bishops at the time, then you must as well remove the **Book of Revelation **since many of the Bishop did not believe it to be inspired! The Church in union with the Pope declared those 7 Books inspired.

Guess, those Popes and the Bishops who held Jeromes view (majority view) did not think much of the magisterium view, if it existed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

]Does a Pope outrank a Bishop?

Yes the Pope outrank the bishop. His the Prince of the Apostle.

Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

Did he exercise his authority under the Chair of Peter? He was merely stating an opinion. The Magisterium of the Church prior to him Declared them to be part of Canon of Scripture.

Guess, those Popes and the Bishops who held Jeromes view (majority view) did not think much of the magisterium view, if it existed.

The Majority did not view the Book of Revelation Canonical either. In fact many of the Bishops in those councils didn’t think it should be part of Canon.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Magisterium declared the 73 Books of the OT part of Canon, these list are same in Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage, and the 27 Books of the NT.

The Bible prior to the Reformation have 73 Books OT text, and 27 NT. The Jews prior to 90 A.D Council of Jamnia used them the 73 Books in fact the Jews in Ethopia have more books in their OT than the mainstream Judaism.

Second, the Dead Sea Scroll also contain within it fragments of the Septuagint.

 

[kaycee]

Did he exercise his authority under the Chair of Peter? He was merely stating an opinion. The Magisterium of the Church prior to him Declared them to be part of Canon of Scripture.

**Additionally, in asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, Gregory was not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the Church of his day. **Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan

Furthermore, the assertion that Gregory’s Morals on Job was **not an official Church document is erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church on Job. That this commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the Apocrypha. **Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

 

[Mannyfit75]

**Additionally, in asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, Gregory was not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the Church of his day. **Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church. Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan

Furthermore, the assertion that Gregory’s Morals on Job was **not an official Church document is erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church on Job. That this commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document. Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the Apocrypha. **Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The cite you gave out in christiantruth.com is unreliable and contains many bias remarks about the Catholic Church. It is unfounded truth and full of lies.

Like I said, what official Church document can you point out in those time period. So far you only show me OPINIONS, not doctrinal statement made by the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

We are getting off the topic here. I’m spliting this to another thread, kaycee.

 

[guanophore]

Eph 4:30 - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

1 Pet 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade–kept in heaven for you, 5 who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time

Looks like Prot eggs are hard boiled kept in heaven.

This is an interesting verse to choose. It is one of the ones that seems to make it clear that there is an aspect of salvation that is yet to come, that has not yet been revealed.

 

[guanophore]

The teaching of the Church (Catholic) is that if one is “good” one may be graced by God with salvation.

He who is worthy in God’s eye will be saved, and all others will not be. Period.

Can you please show me where this teaching can be found? Also, can you tell me how one becomes “worthy” in God’s eyes?

 

[kaycee]

The cite you gave out in christiantruth.com is unreliable and contains many bias remarks about the Catholic Church.

It is unfounded truth and full of lies.

Like I said, what official Church document can you point out in those time period. So far you only show me OPINIONS, not doctrinal statement made by the Church.

Quite an uncharitable accusation that is totally baseless.

Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.
Latin Reference: De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus. Eleazar namque in praelio elephantem feriens stravit, sed sub ipso quem exstinxit occubuit (I Mach. VI, 46) (PL 76.119).

Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

 

[guanophore]

The Church did not write the Bible per se, but was certainly used to recognize the Master’s voice. I think history is the last place you want to go.

So are we no longer seperated brethren?

Who wrote it?

 

[guanophore]

The cite you gave out in christiantruth.com is unreliable and contains many bias remarks about the Catholic Church. It is unfounded truth and full of lies.

Like I said, what official Church document can you point out in those time period. So far you only show me OPINIONS, not doctrinal statement made by the Church.

Y’all have fallen way off the topic, and should take this canon stuff to the scripture forum. It is great stuff, but has nothing to do with salvation by works!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Quite an uncharitable accusation that is totally baseless.

Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.
Latin Reference: De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, sed tamen ad aedificationem Ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus. Eleazar namque in praelio elephantem feriens stravit, sed sub ipso quem exstinxit occubuit (I Mach. VI, 46) (PL 76.119).

Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.

I call the website you posted filled with lies because I check that website that gives a false understanding of the Catholic Church. I am not calling you a liar but the website which you cite.