"Works" Salvation?

[Pax]

…
…
…

And by claiming that being saved by GRACE through faith alone advocates antinomianism (wrongly defined as “as a license to sin”) you reveal that you utterly fail to understand spiritual regeneration which accompanies the gift of salvation.
…
…
[/indent]

Here is another example where you are misrepresenting the Catholic and Protestant positions. I am beginning to wonder where you are coming from?

The Catholic position is that we are regenerated and that righteousness is infused. By this we are what scripture describes as “a new creation.”

The Protestant position is only a forensic one and denies infused righteousness. This is best expressed by the following Protestant definition:

Justification by Faith Alone

James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.

The Westminster statement on justification says:
"Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

 

[apophasis]

In 2:21, James says that Abraham was justified in Gen 22:12 when God says, “Now I know that you fear God because you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me.”

But, there is more to it than that in the text.

At the beginning of the verse, James asks, “Was not our Father Abraham [already] justified by works WHEN he offered up Isaac on the altar?”

Note works is plural. IOW, Abraham was already justified when he offered up Isaac on the altar; Abraham was not justified, again, further, or anymore by offering up Isaac on the altar.

So then, it is not the one deed of Abraham offering up Isaac on the altar that justifies him, but it is a LIFETIME of obedience that Abraham brings with him to the offering of Isaac that shows he was already justified.

Abraham was unequivocally declared righteous, or justified, Gen 15:6, when it is said of him that, ”Abraham believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

James does say that Abraham was justified in Jas 2:21; however, that “justification” is said to be a fulfillment of Gen 15:6.

IOW, v23 states that, the offering of Isaac showed that God’s declaration, in Gen 15:6, was accurate; namely, Abraham was righteous.

To deny that, is to ignore the use of the visual verbs James employs, ie., show me…I’ll show you…you see…you see.

Abraham was justified “when” he offered up Issac, not “by” offering up Isaac! It was his faith in Gen. 15:6 (not his subsequent works) that God reckoned to him as righteousness (Paul concurs in Rom. 4). And by that same FAITH he expressed in Gen. 15:6 he was willing to offer up his only son.

At the time of justification, one is sanctified as well, in the strict sense of being set apart— that inward change continues throughout life, and that is practical sanctification—the progressive movement away from sin, to holiness.

As stated elsewhere, all of that is a sticking point in the difference between biblical justification, and Catholic justification.

RCs confound justification and santification!

To complete what I have to say on this subject, neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor James, nor any of the other NT writers expects that a person will get to heaven without works, although some will (cf 1 Cor 3); but neither do they anywhere state that one gets to heaven on the basis of works, but, only by grace, through faith (cf Jn 5:24; Rom 1:17; Eph 2:8ff; Titus 3:5; et al).

Absolutely !

Well put, brother!

 

[Pax]

I can’t find it right now, but isn’t there a verse in Revelation that contains the threat that someone’s name might be blotted out of the book of life? It couldn’t be blotted out if it hadn’t been written, right?
…
…

Here is a list of quotes concerning the Book of Life in some fashion or another including the quote from the Book of Revelation:

Book of Life & Loss of Faith

Revelation 3:4-5
Yet you have still a few persons in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes; they will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels.

Psalm 69:28
Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous.

Ezekial 33:13-16
Though I say to the righteous that they shall surely live, yet if they trust in their righteousness and commit iniquity, none of their righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. Again, though I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” yet if they turn from their sin and do what is lawful and right-if the wicked restore the pledge, give back what they have taken by robbery, and walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity-they shall surely live, they shall not die. None of the sins that they have committed shall be remembered against them; they have done what is lawful and right, they shall surely live.

Ezk 18:21-31
But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die. Yet you say, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair? When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, “The way of the Lord is unfair.” O house of Israel, are my ways unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, all of you according to your ways, says the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions; Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?

Matthew 24: 9-10
"Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another.

 

[guanophore]

So then, it is not the one deed of Abraham offering up Isaac on the altar that justifies him, but it is a LIFETIME of obedience that Abraham brings with him to the offering of Isaac that shows he was already justified.

Abraham was unequivocally declared righteous, or justified, Gen 15:6, when it is said of him that, ”Abraham believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

Faith is what Abraham found, and, that is what justified him before God—Faith, a gift, and not something to boast about; not works because if by works Abraham could boast (cf Eph 2:8ff).

Well I am glad that we have agreement on these points, that a faith which justifies is demonstrated by “a lifetime of obedience”

At the time of justification, one is sanctified as well, in the strict sense of being set apart— that inward change continues throughout life, and that is practical sanctification—the progressive movement away from sin, to holiness.

As stated elsewhere, all of that is a sticking point in the difference between biblical justification, and Catholic justification.

There is no sticky at all! When Catholics speak of “works” we are speaking of this lifetime of inward change that begins at the moment of justification, moving the believer from sin to holiness. As Abraham did, we demonstrate that we are righteous (by grace, through faith) before God by obedience.

To complete what I have to say on this subject, neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor James, nor any of the other NT writers expects that a person will get to heaven without works, although some will (cf 1 Cor 3); but neither do they anywhere state that one gets to heaven on the basis of works, but, only by grace, through faith (cf Jn 5:24; Rom 1:17; Eph 2:8ff; Titus 3:5; et al).

I am glad that we are all in agreement on this point. It was worth all the fuss!

 

[Sean_Boyle]

this is starting to shape into a useful discussion on faith rather than an two sided disagreement.

 

[crisco]

Here is another example where you are misrepresenting the Catholic and Protestant positions. I am beginning to wonder where you are coming from?

The Catholic position is that we are regenerated and that righteousness is infused. By this we are what scripture describes as “a new creation.”

The Protestant position is only a forensic one and denies infused righteousness. This is best expressed by the following Protestant definition:

Justification by Faith Alone

James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.

The Westminster statement on justification says:
"Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

…so, would this last sentence be at odds with Romans Chapter 2: 6-10 and Romans 8:12-13? And which ‘law’ is the above Westminster statement referring to? The Torah (Mosaic law) or God’s eternal / moral law?? I suspect that it makes quite a difference.
Anyways, interesting discussion everyone!

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

If I am not mistaken, my argument was based on the fact that James was essentially written by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. I apologize if I did not in fact make this point clear at first. My point is that Jesus would not say one thing in His life and in inspiring the Holy Gospels and then another when inspiring James’ epistle.

You’re putting a spin on what I’ve said concerning the “justification before men,” so-called, in James. The primary beneficiary of “observed” justification is the one who’s working. You are taking what I am saying to mean, that we should go around making a big hoopla of the fact we are working by bringing attention to ourselves; that is not what I am saying, neither is that what James is saying.

However, we are able to observe Abraham’s faith in action through the recorded testimony, and apply what Abraham has done to ourselves.

If observation of a working faith is not the issue; then of what use are the visual terms specifically, and the passage generally, to us, or to James’ imaginary adversary? The words James employs in the Greek are literal terms, connected to the use of the EYE.

Does God really need to SEE that we are justified by our actions? I would say no; God is the one who justifies (Rom 8:33); He doesn’t need to see it, and our works don’t have anything to do with our justification, otherwise, Paul would have said, Works are the ones that justify.

With respect to Akin’s piece, his 1st point assumes that profit is salvation; scripture states that it is a gift in Christ (Rom 6:23); I don’t have a problem with his 2nd point, nor with his 3rd point; nor with his 4th point; nor with his 5th point, James is going to show the one he is addressing the example of Abraham’s faith in action; I disagree with his 6th point—what is the point of relating the story if not for those who read it and see, recognize, and understand what was being illustrated? In the 7th point, Abe was justified in Gen 15; same with the 8th point; no problem with the 9th point; there is no slight of hand; it is a strawman. Again, we can see by one’s work, or lack thereof, whether or not he is justified; but the primary beneficiary of that “seeing,” is one’s own observation of himself—God already knows if one is justified because He justified him.

Lazerlike42:

The assertion you made is that in Romans 2 St. Paul is demonstrating what would be necessary to be saved - following the law exactly. This is impossible, so he turns moves forward to demonstrate the need for faith in Christ.
However, now you say that St. Paul is only stating what people think is true.

You’re spinning that as well, in that, you left out my conclusion to which your paraphrase of my words led; namely, Paul sets forth the standard of God’s evaluation of people apart from the Gospel.

That standard is works.

Everyone, believer, and unbeliever, will be judged on the words they say, and on the works they do (Ps 62:12; Pro 4:12; Mt 12:36, 16:27; 1 Cor 3:12ff et al); that is what the whole of scripture says, not just what Romans 2 says, and that is what I believe.

Is that clearer for you?

However, for the believer, his works, or lack thereof, determine his reward in eternity; but he, himself, does not come into judgment/condemnation for sin, because his sin was judged at the cross (Jn 5:24; Col 2:13-15, et al). You can only deny that; you’ll never disprove it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Once the church departed from the teaching the Gospel of Grace it was no longer a Church.

First, since all but the most rabid anti-Catholic Protestants acknowledge that the Catholic Church is a “church”, I ask you to clarify whether you are in that camp or repudiate your statement.

Second, since the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by grace

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.

and YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE having been told this repeatedly by Catholic apologists in this forum and having access to the Catechism yourself - I ask you to publicly retract this lie and apologize for your statement.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I certainly have believed the Apostolic message directly from the apostles themselves in the scripture!

At best, you have believed the Gospel message as preserved, protected and (largely) interpreted by the Catholic Church to whom the Gospel was entrusted by God. At worst, you have omitted much and added still more that was never preached by the true Church.

I absolutely embrace the Lord as my savior and the Church he founded described in the God Breathed scripture. I believe every single word of the Apostolic message penned in our “New Testament”.

And a bit more outside of scripture which you are loathe to admit.

And I also pray that you would turn from the treadmill of sacramentalism to the Savior who needs know mediators to save those He will.

You’ll have to take that up with Jesus who established those sacraments Himself; I would be interested to hear how you will explain the fact that you have disobeyed His commandments under the pretense of avoiding “the treadmill of sacramentalism” when both the Bible and the Church witness to the very things you deny.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you accept the Eucharistic Real Presence as taught by Our Lord in John 6 and by St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30? If not you have rejected that part of the Gospel.

Do you confess your sins in the hearing of an apostolic successor in compliance with John 20:21-23 and Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10? If not then you have embraced a different gospel and a new wind of doctrine.

Do you believe that your baptism washed away sins as taught in the passages that I have cited above? If not then you adhere to a different gospel from both the New Testament and the one that the early church preached and died for.

The rest is all there Kaycee…
The “different gospel” isn’t the Catholic one.

Hear, hear.

Not only does Kaycee deny what the Apostles and the early Church Fathers believed, he disagrees with much of what the first Reformers themselves held true.

Once you’ve split off from the mainstream, the gap just widens the further you travel down that path…

 

[guanophore]

Once the church departed from the teaching the Gospel of Grace it was no longer a Church.

And I also pray that you would turn from the treadmill of sacramentalism to the Savior who needs know mediators to save those He will.

kaycee,this material seems to be an attempt to proselytize Catholics into abandoning their teachings. I think this sort of talk might be considered a violation of the forum rules:

Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

Catholic Answers has an obligation to protect our members and assure that these Forums remain a respected internet discussion environment and a place in which members can feel secure in participating.

To achieve this, it has been necessary to ban certain topics and message content. The reasoning involved should be obvious in most cases; if you are unsure whether or not a particular subject falls within the scope of those that are banned, inquire of a moderator privately, before posting.

Posting material that can reasonably be construed as intended to proselytize Catholics .​

 

[sandusky]

Truthstalker:

I can’t find it right now, but isn’t there a verse in Revelation that contains the threat that someone’s name might be blotted out of the book of life? It couldn’t be blotted out if it hadn’t been written, right?..

Maybe this should be a separate thread.

No need as far as I’m concerned, unless you are looking for a major discussion of it; I posted this a few days ago in response to a similar question concerning Moses request of God in Ex 32:33.

I’ll quickly repost it here

There are different types of “books” in the OT and NT; the two that you have mentioned are the books of the living, and life. Ex 32:33, 34 refers to the book of the living (cf Ps 69:28 sēper, hayyim]); among the ancients that was a register that recorded the names of the people, and their names were “blotted out,” or “crossed out” upon their (untimely) death (cf Ex 17:14; Dt 9:14; 29:20; 2 Kgs 14:27—note the phrase, “blot out from under heaven”). Moses is saying to God, “if you kill them, kill me too.” Moses was among the elect, God would never blot out his name from the book of life.

It is impossible for one’s name to be erased from The Book of Life (cf Rev 3:5). In that passage, many assume that because Jesus says He will not blot out the name of the overcomers [elect], that the converse is true, but that is not the case as it is only overcomers who will be saved, and, therefore, only overcomers whose names are written in the book of life (cf Mt 10:22; 24:13; Mk 13:13), and they are not kept from falling away by their own power, but by the power of God (1 Pet 1:5; cf Jn 10:28; Php 4:7).

The statement in Rev 3:5, “I will not erase…,” is better translated, “I will not, no never erase…,” it is a double-negative in the Gk, ou mā, the strength of that construction is meant to comfort, not threaten; however, there are those whose names are not written in that book (13:8; 17:8; 20:15).

(For more on the various books see, The ISBE Revised, Eerdman’s Publishing, 1979, vol. I, p 534).

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I have been looking through this thread, which is similar to another on works and salvation. My comments in square brackets are meant to be discourteous because I am ashamed.

Why are Protestants so obsessed with what they see as “works salvation”? What difference does it make? [Oh Lord, whose obsession?]

Do you have any clue what rubbish that is? [Not if I am predestined]

What individual teachers teach in churches often is radically different from Catholic teaching. [The moving target]

You are setting up a straw man attack on the CC. [The straw man target]

Does having a wrong theological idea in one’s mind cancel God’s saving grace? If so, is it not you who are preaching works salvation, with the works being a correct intellectual understanding of the mechanics of salvation? [The incomprehensible question]

I always love the OSAS argument. I could be an abortionist, but if I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, I can go on killing babies because I’m saved no matter what I do. [Sarcasm most horrible and inappropriate]

Don’t hold your breath for an answer Mike. He’s not really looking to discuss. He’ll ignore and then start making other accusations against the Church. [Objectify, humiliate, anticipate]

He’ll always be on the offensive, never defend his position because he hasn’t thought, says what he’s told to say by Pastor Billy Bob. [Arrogance par excellence – who on earth do you think you are?]

This happens with many n-Cs/a-Cs who take passages of scripture out of context to prove errant doctrines. [Patronizing and who cares about your *opinion?]

… the common Protestant phenomenon of “getting saved” again and again because of doubts that it really took. [Common – how gross a generalisation]

You have been corrected numerous times on your misunderstandings of Catholic teaching yet you persist on misrepresenting scripture and Catholic teaching on the subject of salvation. [Oh dearie, dearie me: what can one possibly say when confronted by this?]

Once you’ve split off from the mainstream, the gap just widens the further you travel down that path… [Presumably the slippery path to Hell, wherever it is]

Try telling that to Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp. [AARRRRGGGHH]

I cannot tell you how taken-aback I am by the tone of these posts. As a would-be convert I am shocked at the level of crude bigotry, defensiveness, lack of charity, and inability to engage in civilized debate.

There is clearly disagreement among Catholics, other Christians, and questers, as well as among Catholics themselves.

There is nothing wrong with disagreement and debate. Hatefulness, spite and deliberate misunderstanding are not appropriate here. God’s grace is clearly not with us. But I wonder why?

Thank you Pax, and others, for the humanity, compassion and lovingkindness with which you put your position.

Offhand, I would assume that if I spoke in the way others do to my brothers and sisters in Christ, God would not take to it kindly, for it does not reflect the grace of His Son. Forget the scriptures for a while: be like the Christian you claim to be.

Blessings

 

[Randy_Carson]

Carol-

Since you quoted me once in your post, I will respond.

There are many types of folks who come to chat in these forums (fora?). Here is the spectrum:

Some folks are Catholics who may not have thought too much about their faith and then someone hits them with a “Why do you Catholics…” type of question, and they need an answer. Once they have the specific answer they need, they are usually never heard from again. However, some remain “lurking” in the background learning without much (name removed by moderator)ut.

Some are soon-to-be or thinking-about-being Catholics who have honest questions and they want genuine answers. I answer them respectfully and they go away happy.

Others are hard-core anti-Catholics who want to tell me that I’m going to hell by worshipping Mary or that the Church is the Whore of Babylon, etc. These are usually “one-post wonders” - though some stick around for a day or two before they get banned.

Some members are non-Catholics who simply enjoy asking tough questions and find the debate stimulating. This group is divided between those who act respectfully and those who don’t.

There may be others, but I think you get the idea.

The point I want to make is that most of us tailor our tone to match that of the person to whom we are responding. And some of us have engaged in dialogue with one another on more than one occasion and topic. In other words, we know with whom we are dealing, and we don’t pull any punches. Sure, we cross the line from time to time…if you watch long enough, you’ll see some apologies extended and accepted.

However, if a rabid, anti-Catholic nut pops in to pull off a “drive-by” on us, then he’s going to get both barrels. Why? because he needs to hear the truth stated as plainly as possible. OTOH, the serious inquirer will get lots of thoughtful assistance.

Some of the folks in this thread fall in the middle…they’re perennial antagonists who are capable of dishing out and taking it fairly evenly. They don’t really expect to convert us, and we’re under no illusions about them, either. But we spar to sharpen our own understandings of our respective faiths, so actually, both sides benefit from being forced to dig deeper into the Word of God and into history, etc. Man of God sharpening a man of God and all that.

That may not be the “Sermon on the Mount” type of charity you expected, but this is an apologetics forum…not a catechism class.

We’re engaged in defending the Church and the Faith from those who are engaged in attacking it. For their part, our separated brethren are engaged in defending their ideas of true Christianity from the errors of Romanism. That may offend some sensibilities, but there it is.

See what I mean?

 

[apophasis]

You are preaching falsely concerning your own position let alone that of the Catholic position. Try reading Augustine thoroughly and Catholic teaching in general. What you are proposing is a sophist’s argument. You forget, ignore, and basically deny our humanity. You propose that somehow God removes his endowment of free will in man and that therefore, by our view, God is responsible for our falling from grace and being condemned. In reality your position on double predestination is the one that places God in the position of being responsible for the condemnation of those that either do not come to faith or do not persevere. You are the pot attempting to call the kettle black even when there is no kettle.

God gives “sufficient” grace to all men because he desires that all men be saved per 1 Tim 2:4. God’s grace leaves our free will in tact and we can choose to know, love, and serve God or we can choose to turn from him. God loves us and therefore preserves his gift of free will and will not force us. God positively predestines some with particularly efficacious grace which will enable them to persevere no matter what. God gives his grace as He wills for all of the spiritual gifts as well. In no case, however, does God destroy the fact that we are made in His image and likeness with free will. It is for this reason that our choice to turn from him is solely our doing.

I didn’t present my own position in that post, Pax. I presented the logical conclusion based on YOUR position to which you ended: “We can do NOTHING ON OUR OWN.”

I certainly said nothing about “double predestination.”

Suggesting that our position makes God culpable is pure sophistry.

That conclusion was based on YOUR soteriology, not mine. Unlike you, I don’t believe a true believer can lose the gift of salvation (Rom. 11:29). And based solely on the logic of your soteriology God IS culpable since you stated yourself that the works which maintain one’s gifted salvation are wrought only by God.

 

[apophasis]

Here is another example where you are misrepresenting the Catholic and Protestant positions. I am beginning to wonder where you are coming from?

The Catholic position is that we are regenerated and that righteousness is infused. By this we are what scripture describes as “a new creation.”

“Infused righteousness” is not what Scripture calls “a new creation.” A true believer (not simply a baptized man) is a “new creature,” a “new creation,” because by the power of God he is no longer in Adam but now in the resurrected Christ, the “last Adam” (Rom. 6; 2 Cor. 5:17)

The Protestant position is only a forensic one and denies infused righteousness. This is best expressed by the following Protestant definition:

Justification by Faith Alone

James Buchanan states that justification by faith is a legal or forensic term used in scripture to denote the acceptance of anyone as righteous in the sight of God.

The Westminster statement on justification says:
"Justification is altogether a legal declarative act on God’s part as the supreme judge. We deny that justification is any sense a moral transformation or inner renewal. In justification, God legally declares the sinner who in himself is still guilty and polluted to be righteous in Christ. Justification involves only the legal imputation or legal account of the perfect righteousness of Christ to the sinner. We deny that justification is by a grace at conversion that enables sinners to do the law unto their justification.”

It is a legal declaration; that’s what “reckon” means. But it is one’s faith that God reckons “it” to him as righteouness, not works (see Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5). But there is also the “imputed” righteousness of Christ which is based on the believer being now “in Christ,” a new creation:2 Cor. 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him"This is not the RC idea of “infused” righteousness into a soul, but the righteousness that comes with now being “in Christ,” a “new creation.” (Gal. 6:15) It is double imputation. A true believer’s sins are imputed to Christ, once for all, on the cross, and His righteousness imputed to the believer - being now a new creation “in Him.” This is all in the realm of being “born again.” One can no more undo one’s spiritual rebirth, and all it entails, than one can undo his physical birth. In fact, one’s rebirth is far greater since it is based on* eternal* realities “in Christ.”

 

[Vincent]

And based solely on the logic of your soteriology God IS culpable since you stated yourself that the works which maintain one’s gifted salvation are wrought only by God.

Keep in mind that Catholic soteriology is ontological.

God is “He who IS”-- the subsistent act of “to be” itself. Accepting God’s gift to do the “the good works that he has prepared in advance” is a greater participation in the act of to-be.

Doing that which causes the loss of salvation (the choice to sin), on the other hand, is a privation of what it means “to be”. Such actions are ontologically defective.

Since God is pure Be-ing, it seems unintelligible to claim that God is blameworthy for causing ontologically defective acts. To do so would be to violate the principle of non-contradiction.

We are created from nothing, so, whenever we choose to sin — and thus, “recede” into the nothingness from which we “came” — the cause of this ontologically defective act is reduced to us, not to God. God is the very opposite of nothingness, after all.

For this reason, it seems that even *if *the Catholic position on the possibility of the loss of salvation is correct, it wouldn’t imply that God is somehow at fault.

 

[Pax]

…so, would this last sentence be at odds with Romans Chapter 2: 6-10 and Romans 8:12-13? And which ‘law’ is the above Westminster statement referring to? The Torah (Mosaic law) or God’s eternal / moral law?? I suspect that it makes quite a difference.
Anyways, interesting discussion everyone!

I believe that the Westminster statement on justification would refer to any and all works. I would contend that it would be at odds with both Rom 2:6-10, 8:12-13 and many others.

 

[sandusky]

It is a legal declaration; that’s what “reckon” means. But it is one’s faith that God reckons “it” to him as righteouness, not works (see Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5). But there is also the “imputed” righteousness of Christ which is based on the believer being now “in Christ,” a new creation:2 Cor. 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him"This is not the RC idea of “infused” righteousness into a soul, but the righteousness that comes with now being “in Christ,” a “new creation.” (Gal. 6:15) It is double imputation. A true believer’s sins are imputed to Christ, once for all, on the cross, and His righteousness imputed to the believer - being now a new creation “in Him.” This is all in the realm of being “born again.” One can no more undo one’s spiritual rebirth, and all it entails, than one can undo his physical birth. In fact, one’s rebirth is far greater since it is based on* eternal* realities “in Christ.”

[sign]Amen!![/sign]

 

[Pax]

I didn’t present my own position in that post, Pax. I presented the logical conclusion based on YOUR position to which you ended: “We can do NOTHING ON OUR OWN.”

I certainly said nothing about "double predestination."That conclusion was based on YOUR soteriology, not mine. Unlike you, I don’t believe a true believer can lose the gift of salvation (Rom. 11:29). And based solely on the logic of your soteriology God IS culpable since you stated yourself that the works which maintain one’s gifted salvation are wrought only by God.

Sorry, but the conclusion you attempted to draw was based on your flawed logic. Nothing more and nothing less.