"Works" Salvation?

[Sean_Boyle]

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.

God does exist outside the confirms of time and space according to your faith, right?

It would be save to say that the work of the cross is not a past tense event?

It happened, it is happening, it will continue to happen…

It’s a process, not a one time event. Unless you believe God is bound to physical boundaries like us for some reason.

 

[parkly]

Excerpt from 1345 in the CCC:

“Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so **that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.” **

As a Catholic growing up, it was this kind of language that really made me believe that I have to earn salvation and favor with God. Do you not agree that this type of teaching fosters a “works” salvation (works being the means of our salvation?? Truly, the commandments were not given that we might obtain salvation through them but that the knowledge of sin would come by them. That is the first and foremost purpose of the law/commandments. Otherwise, I as a Christian, now love His law and live by it - out of love for Him and to please Him…not as a means of salvation.

Romans 3:20 KJV 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Looking for comments.

link,
If we had to earn our salvation then grace means nothing.
Works follow our salvation. See, Rom.3:21-26

God bless,
parkly

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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?

Thank you so much Randy for this thoughtful reply. It helps - although I think you perhaps forgot to list some of the rabid pro-Catholics who may also stray over the verbiage line.

I get the general drift that posters’ motives for posting vary tremendously, and are not all honourable (that sounds terribly old-fashioned!).

The only point I want to make is about the issue of defensiveness. I - and other true seekers - am not looking for anyone to defend the faith. As a would-be Catholic I am looking to understand this Catholic faith in as orthodox a guise as possible. Perhaps attacks are seen where they are not meant - as in one case of a response to me on this thread, for which forgiveness was subsequently asked for by the poster, and immediately given.

There is no need for defensiveness in the eyes of God, surely. He sees all, knows all, and it is for all of us to share our insights and understanding of His grace and the mission of Christ asdivine and equally divine children of God.

Many thanks again, and blessings

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

These terms are ambiguous (speaking logically). Certainly, they can refer to literally seeing things. They do not always, however. In Matthew 8:4, Jesus uses the same verb when He says, “See that you tell no man…” In Matthew 9:30, He says, “See that no man know it…” In Matthew 24:6, Jesus says, “See that you are not troubled” using the same verb. Paul says “See that nobody renders evil for good” in 1 Thessalonians 5:15. In Acts 8:23, Peter says “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
There are other examples. The word does not only apply to literal seeing.

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.

In Genesis, God says just this when stopping Abraham’s offering: “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (22:12). God does not lie. Of course, He foreknew that this would happen, but in some way He truly means that this act showed what was in Abraham’s heart.

With respect to Akin’s piece…

As I said, any one of the points are enough to show that James was not concerend with justification before men. The problem with saying that the primary beneficiary is one’s own self is that Abraham is being offered as an example, as is Rahab. He is offering them to prove a point. Whatever they did is what he is talking about, and again, James is talking about what happened to these people in the past Certainly Abraham was given some indication that he was justified by his actions, but Rahab wasn’t. She didn’t know that she was just before God because she saw her actions, and James says that she was justified “in the same way” as Abraham, so whatever his point is concerning Rahab, it’s the same as his point about Abraham. James is offering people examples of how one can be justified, not of how one can know he is justified. He is offering the example of Abraham and Rahab to make a point - works justify. They weren’t justified before themselves; they were justified before God. He certainly isn’t merely instructing that we examine ourselves to see if we are justified, but rather encouraging us to add works by showing that they are necessary.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

First, I sincerely apologize if I am spinning anything; I certainly don’t mean to.

As far as the idea that God is setting a standard, this is impossible, because St. Paul says that those who do good will be rewared with eternal life. This isn’t true apart from the gospel because apart from the gospel, good works don’t mean anything because everyone is in debt to God and unable to please Him. However, St. Paul asserts that those who do good will receive eternal life. The problem with this interpretation is this: even if a person were able apart from Grace did do all the good works in the world and failed to commit a single sin, they still wouldn’t receive life.

The interpretation that St. Paul is setting a standard asserts that his point is to show people what they would need to do to receive eternal life before moving onward to show that everyone sins so people realize that they can’t meet the standard. The big problem here is that even if someone could meet the standard, they still wouldn’t be rewarded as St. Paul says. The only way the standard makes any sense is if it is offered to people already living in Grace.

Another problem with it is that the general context of Romans 1 and 2 doesn’t fit the idea that St. Paul is just setting up a standard. He gives no indication that he means this as a standard he is going to knock down.

Of course the biggest problem is that St. Paul is writing to people who are already believers. These people have no need of being convinced of these things or of coming to Christ. They already have Christ. The things St. Paul is teaching *must *be applicable to people who are already believers.

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.

St. Paul contradicts this idea in 1 Corinthians 15: “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain.” (1-2)

He says that these people are being saved, not that they are, and warns that if they don’t hold fast to his word, all the belief they had will be in vain. These people have faith, but that may be in vain if they do not hold fast.

 

[Lazerlike42]

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.

Certainly a lifetime of obedience was involved with Abraham. However, even it it were given that the intepretation of the verse given is accurate, it still teaches that Abraham was justified by works. If this interpretation is accepted, it creates a greater problem. Given that James is not concerned with increasing justification, he must either be referring to justification before men or before God. If he is referring to justification before God, and justification is a binary state that cannot be increased, than this means that at the time of Moriah, Abraham had already received the one time binary justification via works, a Pelagian idea. If he is referring to justification before men, the place of the sentence in the context of James’ argument becomes highly inappropriate. It makes no sense for him to make this statement about Abraham if his point is that works justify us before men, because he would be detracting from his point. Abraham would already have been justified before men by his works, so the obedience on Moriah would become an example of a work that is unecessary to justify him before men when he is trying to provide examples of why works do justify before men.

OTOH, Paul’s use of that passage, Gen 15:6, and the term justified, is concerned with the question, “How can a man become right before God?”

Paul says in Rom 4:1ff, “what then has Abraham found?” Is it justification by works?

No; Paul says, if Abraham has found justification before God by works, then, “he has [found] something to boast about, but not before God.”

So what is it that Abraham has found that justified him before God?

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited 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).

Notice also, Abraham was not made righteous, but that righteousness was credited TO him [credited, Gk., *logidzomai

, a legal term].

IOW, faith did not bring about an inward change in Abraham; faith brought about a change in Abraham’s standing, or status before God. Because of Abraham’s faith, God’s righteousness [Gk *dikaiosūnā], was credited logidzomia] to Abraham. That is the great exchange of the cross, in which the penalty for the sinner’s sin is laid on Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is then imputed to the sinner through faith (2 Cor 5:21).

Paul confirms that Abraham’s change of status is an actual acquittal of the guilt of his sin before God when he says, ”Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account (Rom 4:7-7; cf Ps 32:2).” [Account, Gk *logidzomai, a legal term, same as Rom 4:3].

Quoting from Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, p. 325,

[Contrary to the Protestant contention], the Greek verb logizomai does not most often indicate what someone or something is merely “considered” to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf. Lk 22:37; Rm 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1Co 4:1; 13:5, 11; Ph 3:13; 4:8; Hb 11:19, et al)… n only a few instances is logizomai used as a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality (cf. Rm 2:26; 2Co 12:6). Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that logizomai denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it.

Even if we are to conclude that logizomai refers only to what is credited, this does not detract from the position that justification entails a real inner change. No Catholic would deny that in justification, a legal declaration of righteousness is made. The disagreement is with the idea that this is the only thing that justification entails. Catholics believe that when God makes a declaration, what He declares becomes true, as His word cannot return to Him void without accomplishing it’s purpose (cf. Isaiah 55:11). If God were to declare me funny, it wouldn’t be merely a declaration that He finds me funny, it would actually cause me to be funny, just as Him saying “let there be light” caused light to exist.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

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.

The problem here is that the ‘show me’ passages cannot be used as evidence, since they are ambiguous phrases. There are at least two ways they could be interpreted, and nothing in themselves requires a given interpretation. In and of themselves, they cannot support anything postively, such as the interpretation that James is concerned with demonstrative justification, but can only oppose things negatively by being incompatible with a particular interpretation. They are compatible with both the Catholic position and the position being advocated here, so in and of themselves, the phrases are not capable of settling the issue. The greater context must be taken into account.

The greater context is that James is speaking of soteriological justification, not demonstrative justification, as was shown in the quotation from Jimmy Akin and in my earlier response to Linkowski.

In terms of the fulfillment, the problem is that this phrase nowhere else in the entire Bible takes on a meaning like this. It is never used to refer to something being made evident or demonstrated, but only to refer to prophecies being fulfilled. James here cites Genesis 15:6 as a prophecy that is fulfilled on Mount Moriah. For further support of this, examine James’ entire argument.

His intention here is to show that faith apart from works is dead - works must be added to faith, completing it, or there is no salvation (cf. 2:14). His problem is to prove to someone who believes that works are meaningless that they can actually do something - namely, justify. He first uses the example of the needy in order to support this by showing that with faith only and no works, these people would go hungry. He then inserts an imaginary interlocutor objecting, and responds by showing that even the demons believe. Finally, he comes across the example of Abraham. He cites Abraham’s offering on Moriah. However, the original text doesn’t explicitly suggest that Abraham was justified here - the same argument that Linkowski offered. Thus, James cites Genesis 15:6 as a prophecy which he claims is fulfilled in Genesis 22 in order to gain Scriptural support. If this seems impossible because it is such a strethc of the passage for James to make, consider the citations of the Psalms in the Gospels and in St. Paul; they make such stretches constantly. James then points out what he has demonstrated with his example of Abraham - “You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” He says “you see” in reference to the demonstration he has just made, and he states the general point that was demonstrated: works can do justify, too. He throws in Rahab for extra measure and, having established that works can actually do something, repeats his main point (faith without works is dead) in light of this. Then, he moves on considering the matter settled.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

Paul also says that on the basis of faith, a man is blessed by God’s acquittal because his ”lawless deeds have been forgiven,” and his ”sins have been covered (cf Ps 32:1).”

The inward change in the sinner is wrought prior to faith, because the sinner is dead, spiritually, and must be brought to life (Eph 2:1ff; Col 2:13ff); a dead sinner cannot do much of anything good, let alone believe, which is surely good; therefore, regeneration is needed first, and it is wholly an act of God (Jn 1:13; cf Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3; Jn 3:3-8). We did not choose to be made physically alive, and we did not choose to be born—it is something that happened to us; similarly, the analogies of scripture state that the sinner is passive in regeneration as well—it happens to him (cf Eze 36:26-27).

This is essentially (though not perfectly) compatible with several permitted Catholic theological positions, so I will not offer criticism of it.

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.

I will put together a syllogism.

1. Justification alone is required to see God.
2. But Hebrews 12:14 teaches that a sanctification that must be strived for is required to see God.

Therefore, justification is the same thing as a sanctification that must be strived for.

This pretty clearly shows that justification is a process that Christians must continue, and that sanctification is the same process of justification.

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).

Catholics would completely agree with this point.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Lazerlike42:
I have some issue with you last entry and I will take these one at a time…First - dikaioo…the word for justified is…
declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be… Remember, James is concerned with the “showing” of faith… James 2:18…

The problem with this argument is that it is based upon an equivocation concerning James’ use of the word diakaioo and an amphiboly concerning his use of phrases involving ‘show.’ It is correct that diakaioo can take on a demnstrative meaning, just as it is true that James’ phrases about ‘showing’ may refer to the demonstrative nature of works. However, diakaioo also, and in fact usually, refers to justification soteriologically speaking, while the phrases concerning ‘showing’ can also be understood to be argumentative language.

The point is that these two pieces of evidence are ambiguous - they could each take on a meaning that is non-supportive of the demonstrative position, and in the case of the former they could take on a meaning that is supportive of the soteriological position. This ultimately means that they are not meaningful as evidence; because there is nothing in and of themselves that clarifies their meaning, the exegete must look elsewhere in the context of the passage to arrive at a definite conclusion. The ambiguous nature of these terms allows the demonstrative position, but in and of themselves cannot be taken to support it.

When the immediate and general context is examined, it becomes apparent that these terms are not intended to posit the idea that works demonstrate faith. The transition to this portion of the epistle occurs in verses 12 and 13, which are
concerned with the issue of God’s judgment. Verse 14, which formally begins the section, firmly establishes the soteriological context, asking, “can faith save him?” The passage goes on to assert that faith apart from works is dead. After discussing Abraham, James cites the case of Rahab, someone who was clearly not just before God until the
time James brings into question. With her, it cannot be said she was merely being justified before men, for she was not yet just before God. James says that her justification was “in the same way” as that of Abraham that was just mentioned, and so we can say that the discussion of Abraham was not concerned with demonstration before men. Finally, James concludes by again asserting that faith apart from works is dead. In the broader context, the entire epistle of James is concerned with soteriology, from the opening teachings about perseverence and temptation to the final encouragement about saving Christian brothers’ souls “from death.” The context rules out the possibility that James is speaking in a merely demonstrative way.

1. You have not tackled this in light of Romans 7 either…

The problem here is that, while Paul says we are free from the law, he also tells us in Romans 3:31 that the law is upheld, or as the King James Version renders it, ‘established.’ James also tells us that there is a “royal law” (2:8) - literally, ‘the king’s law.’ This is the new ‘law,’ the law given by Christ, that commands love. The key that brings everything together is Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:8ff:

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

He echoes the same point in Galatians, as he says, "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (5:14). Christians are not bound to a given law, but are bound to love. In loving, the law is fulfilled, whether it is the Law of Moses, the royal law of Christ, or any other law God’s people might be bound to.

Thus, St. Paul teaches that if one should have all the faith in the world or go so far as to accept martyrdom, he will not be saved unless he has love. As Paul teaches, love does many things. There is his list in 1 Corinthians 13.

There are the moral precepts that are expressed in the 10 commandments. These themselves are not based on any law, as can be seen by the fact that Cain was held accountable for murder though no law existed at the time. This is why St. Paul uses Abraham as an example - he was justified apart from a law. Christians aren’t bound to a law, but they cannot either be saved lest they love, and love, as Paul teaches, keeps even the ten commandments.

 

[Lazerlike42]

3. You did not tackle the issue that the OT does not include the added language to show this stepwise justification.

I don’t need to do this. The Apostle has done it for me. There are all sorts of things that are taught in which an Old Testament source seems to have nothing to say about what is being asserted by the New Testament writer. The Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, add to the Old Testament by explaining the fuller meaning, regardless of the original text. The issue isn’t what the Old Testament says, but what James says about it.

1. In first John, you says that the evidences given to the reader are there to show them they are “abiding in Christ”. BUT…this is a half truth…the main phraseology that I see being used is “Whosoever is born of God”…this supports the Protestant case that a person who is truly saved will…hate sin, love, practice righteousness, overcome the world, love the brethren…

1 John 5:4 NAS95 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith.
1 John 3:9 NAS95 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

These are just examples, there are many others…but, certainly, the one born of God abides in Christ.

Link

This is another instance of amphiboly. Certainly the passages could mean that one who is born of God will do these various things. However, they could also be given as a test by which a believer could examine himself to see if he was truly born of God, or truly in a familial relationship with God. Again, the text itself cannot prove either point. Only the context can, and the context of 1 John strongly indicates that the latter is the case insofar as that it begins and ends with encouragements concerning abstinence from sin, confessing of sins, and teachings on how to handle particular varieties of sin.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

I believe you’re incorrect in your contentions concerning the Book of Life.

I disagree with your take on Revelation 3:5 for the following reasons. I have approximately ten different translations of the scriptures and none of them translates it in the fashion that your source intimates. I’ll take that as a repudiation of a bias until I am shown otherwise.

Your take on the passage also ignores the context.

The passage says:

“He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.”

Please note that the passage says that the one who conquers will be clad in white garments. It does not say, “the one who has faith shall be clad thus in white garments.” Clearly, those who conquer will not be blotted out and that does say something about those that do not conquer doesn’t it?

This passage is in the context of Jesus telling John what to say to the seven Churches. This context includes a listing of sins, warnings, and even the threat of removing their “lampstand” which is a reference to the destruction of that particular local church. The passages in the instructions to the seven churches makes reference to those whose garments are stained and to those who will be clad in white garments. The former are lost unless they repent and the latter are faithful and saved. The former will be blotted out of the book of life while the latter will not.

As far as the OT is concerned you are only partly right. The book of life in the OT does not refer only to a human census book used by the Israelites. It also refers to penance practices. The ten days starting with Rosh Hashanah and ending with Yom Kippur are commonly known as the Days of Awe (Yamim Noraim) or the Days of Repentance. This is a time for serious introspection, a time to consider the sins of the previous year and repent before Yom Kippur.
One of the ongoing themes of the Days of Awe is the concept that G-d has “books” that he writes our names in, writing down who will live and who will die, who will have a good life and who will have a bad life, for the next year. These books are written in on Rosh Hashanah, but our actions during the Days of Awe can alter G-d’s decree. The actions that change the decree are “teshuvah, tefilah and tzedakah,” repentance, prayer, good deeds (usually, charity). These “books” are sealed on Yom Kippur. This concept of writing in books is the source of the common greeting during this time is “May you be inscribed and sealed for a good year.”

The OT references are a reflection and prefiguring of the references to the Book of Life in Revelation. Psalm 69 is clearly messianic in nature. You can easily ascertain that from Protestant commentaries. The messianic message concerning Jesus includes the Book of Life. Those that turn from the Lord or at enmity with the Lord can and will be blotted out of the book of life.

Lastly, it is also worthwhile for purposes of our thread topic to look at Revelation 20:12-15. It says:

“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Please take note that everyone gets judged by what they have done according to what is written in the books. Then come the consequences, and those whose names are not found in the book of life (i.e. those not written there from the beginning or blotted out) will be thrown into the lake of fire.

There is one more thing here. In the book of Revelation there are no less than nine times and they all refer to salvation. The last mention of conquering is in Rev 21: 7-8 which says:

“He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”

Notice once again how faith is not mentioned and how conquering is necessary to have the “heritage” and be a son of God. And look what happens to the sinners. Clearly, we are not saved by faith alone.

 

[Pax]

“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)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.”

And now we have another unveiling…this time it is “double imputation.” I’m afraid another novel interpretation has just been hatched.

 

[Bishopite]

quote=apophasis;2004704]Pax, are you Augustinian? If, as you say, faith is a “gift” of God, He then being the cause of one’s belief; and if, as you say, works are something wrought in the believer by God, God then being the cause of those works; then if salvation which, as you say, is based on faith (gifted/caused by God) and works (caused/wrought by God) fail, causing then the loss of one’s salvation, then this failure and loss MUST OF NECESSITY (based on your soteriology) be attributed to God and God alone. It is God who has failed men, men have not failed God since, as you say, “We do nothing on our own.”

What you can’t seem to get right is that we don’t do anything on our own apart from grace and you keep asserting the their are only one type of works in Scripture when it has been clearly shown that you are wrong.

**James 2:14-26 “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? **If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, *“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”*And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

Grace and faith are “GIFTS” from God, yet gifts also carry with them responsibilities don’t they?
If I give my child a vehicle they still have the responsibility to drive it correctly according to the traffic laws, and without being on drugs or drunk, don’t they? You fail to use proper reason in your Scriptural hermenuetics and just make baseless claims against the Catholic Church, then try to argue for antinomianism which almost every Protestant denomination condemns. Was not Abraham justified by his works? Yes along with his faith, in perfected his faith, in other words, it made his faith real! It IS a very clear and straight forward statement that you ignore; it is Scriptural and to the point.

No, Pax, just the opposite. Those who teach that a true believer can lose the divine gift of salvation negates the cross of Christ in which this power of God’s GRACE is rooted. 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.

Again, if I give my child a car as a gift, that child can still FREELY abuse the gift given to them, eh?
I clearly gave you the definition of antinomianism. But since you don’t seem to want to accept it I’ll go ahead and give it again from Merriam Websters dictionary online…

"Main Entry: an·ti·no·mi·an
Function: noun
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'nO-me-&n
Etymology: Medieval Latin *antinomus, *from Latin *anti- *+ Greek *nomos *law
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
- antinomian adjective
- an·ti·no·mi·an·ism/-me-&-"ni-z&m/ noun"

 

[Linkowski]

link,
If we had to earn our salvation then grace means nothing.
Works follow our salvation. See, Rom.3:21-26

God bless,
parkly

I agree wholeheartedly…but Justin Martyr doesn’t.

Excerpt from 1345 in the CCC:

“Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree wholeheartedly…but Justin Martyr doesn’t.

Excerpt from 1345 in the CCC:

“Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.”

Why do you omit the full context of the message?

This 1345 describe the Mass.

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

1345 is part of the Liturgical Celebration of the Mass.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1345

 

[Lazerlike42]

Justin Martyr did not believe in salvation by works. He believes works were necessary for salvation, as was keeping the commandments, but he didn’t believe in Pelagianism, which seems to be what you are trying to suggest. Please examine yourself in prayer, Linkowski, and see if you are truly disputing honestly or are just trying to prove a point.

A cursory reading of his dialogue with Trypho will attest to this. For example, in chapter 44, he writes,

“But there is no other [way] [to be saved] than this, —to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives.”

In chapter 45, he asserts that those who did righteous deeds of the law before Christ will be saved, but only through Christ.

 

[apophasis]

Keep in mind that Catholic soteriology is ontological.

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.

“Keep in mind” my logic was based entirely on the soteriology of Pax. And “keep in mind” I don’t believe one can lose salvation. Pax does and based on the soteriological position he presents God MUST be at fault since the works which maintain one’s salvation are wrought by God, not the one he saved - ask Baalim’s donkey (you had to be there).

As for your idea that one sins himself into “the nothingness from which he came,” sorry, but that’s too far out of the realm of Biblical revelation for me.

 

[Truthstalker]

I agree wholeheartedly…but Justin Martyr doesn’t.

Excerpt from 1345 in the CCC:

“Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.”

Link,

This has been fully answered. You admitted you took it out of context. Earlier you said you were through posting on this thread, but here you are, taking it out of context again as if it had never been answered.

Unbelievable.

 

[apophasis]

What you can’t seem to get right is that we don’t do anything on our own apart from grace and you keep asserting the their are only one type of works in Scripture when it has been clearly shown that you are wrong.

Well, when it comes to Scripture, I think Paul sums it up quite well:**Rom. 11:6 ** "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."Yes, Rome keeps trying to say there are different “types” of works man must perform for salvation, but it is Paul who keeps refuting her, not me. I simply respond with Pauline theology, not my own (I have no authority - and actually, nor does Rome).

Grace and faith are “GIFTS” from God, yet gifts also carry with them responsibilities don’t they?

I do not see “grace” and “faith” as gifts from God. Grace is the means by which God saves based on Christ’s work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation on the cross. Faith being a personal response to the message of Christ’s saving work on the cross:"For BY grace you have been saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works…"But to respond to your question. Yes, gifts can carry a responsibility for the one who received it. But a GIFT will always remain a gift. How one handles it does not change the nature of it. Nor should it change the mind of the one who gave it - otherwise it was never truly a gift. What does Paul say?Rom 11:29 “…for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

If I give my child a vehicle they still have the responsibility to drive it correctly according to the traffic laws, and without being on drugs or drunk, don’t they?

Of course. But if you gifted your child that vehicle he/she had nothing to do with the purchase of it. Right? That burden was totally yours. Now, if you expected your child to pay you back for the purchase of it, then it was never truly a gift, was it? It was merely a loan. The same principle would apply if you attached stipulations to it.

You fail to use proper reason in your Scriptural hermenuetics

Actually, my reasoning is based on a proper hermeneutics. That which Scripture itself reveals. A proper hermeneutics helps to guard against imposing one’s own reasoning upon Scripture.

I clearly gave you the definition of antinomianism. But since you don’t seem to want to accept it I’ll go ahead and give it again from Merriam Websters dictionary online…

"Main Entry: an·ti·no·mi·an
Function: noun
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'nO-me-&n
Etymology: Medieval Latin *antinomus, *from Latin *anti- *+ Greek *nomos *law
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality
- antinomian adjective
- an·ti·no·mi·an·ism/-me-&-"ni-z&m/ noun"

And this “moral law” one must perfectly obey in order to achieve salvation is what?

 

[Truthstalker]

I do not see “grace” and “faith” as gifts from God.QUOTE]

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—