"Works" Salvation?

[Vincent]

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 I’ve pointed out, Pax’s soteriology in no way implies that God is at fault for the loss of salvation, since the cause of the loss of salvation–sin-- is a defective act. But God does no defective acts. Thus God cannot be faulted for the loss of salvation. Pax’s explanation therefore doesn’t lead to the conclusion you’ve proposed.

On the other hand, the works which maintain one’s salvation aren’t defective acts, but the very opposite, so in a certain sense they can be reduced to God as cause. Therefore, to use your language, you can “fault” God for a person receiving salvation. But since God doesn’t do defective acts, you cannot fault God for the person’s defective acts, such as the rejection of salvation.

I would add that “. . .the works that God prepared beforehand” (Ephesians 2:10), which we are to work “for God is at work in us” (Cf. Philippians 2:13) are gifts, freely given and freely received. Works that maintain salvation are reduced to God as cause in the sense of the one who freely offers the gift. We are cause in the sense of those who freely receive the gift.

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.

That’s a way of saying that sin is “an effort to gain something against the will of God; but the will of God is all that holds us in existence. When we sin, we are hacking away at our only support” (Frank Sheed, Theology for Beginners 52).

God is “I am who am” / “He who is”. We’re created from nothing. Both of these premises are firmly established in revelation.

“Am”/“Is” are inflections of the verb “Be”. We can conclude from examining God’s name, that He is be-ing itself, in all of its purity. God’s will is thus pure existence. But sin opposes God’s will. Thus, sin is the privation of existence.

Where there is no existence there is “nothing”. Thus, we can say that whenever we cause the privation of our existence by committing sin we try to “turn back to the nothingness from whence we came.” And, to repeat, that is a defective act, and defective acts cannot be attributed to God.

 

[Pax]

“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.

I have already handled your mangled reasoning. In charity I will not say anything else.

 

[Vincent]

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

If faith is not a gift of God, then it follows that faith is generated solely by human effort.

Certainly, it’s a response, as you’ve stated, to a movement that’s initiated by God. Yet, in the final analysis, faith in this paradigm remains nothing more than a human act-- through which salvation by grace is received.

This understanding of faith contains semi-pelagian overtones; it predicates “salvation by grace” on mere human effort. Thus it ironically entails works-salvation.

 

[apophasis]

As I’ve pointed out, Pax’s soteriology in no way implies that God is at fault for the loss of salvation, since the cause of the loss of salvation–sin-- is a defective act. But God does no defective acts.

But according to Rome “works” maintain one’s salvation - not keeping oneself pure from sin. You have sacraments for that. And, according to Pax, those “works” are wrought by God alone.

Thus God cannot be faulted for the loss of salvation. Pax’s explanation therefore doesn’t lead to the conclusion you’ve proposed.

But of course it does. If the works, which are wrought by God, are not there it’s God’s fault not man’s. Since according to Paxology God is the cause of those salvation maintaining works - not man - they’re an act of His grace.

On the other hand, the works which maintain one’s salvation aren’t defective acts, but the very opposite, so in a certain sense they can be reduced to God as cause.

Now hold that thought!

Therefore, to use your language, you can “fault” God for a person receiving salvation. But since God doesn’t do defective acts, you cannot fault God for the person’s defective acts, such as the rejection of salvation.

But we’re not talking about the rejection of salvation but the maintenance of it - which you also claim is by “works.” Works which Pax claims are wrought in the believer BY God. So if the works are lacking, thereby resulting in the loss of salvation, then the fault must of necessity fall to God the “cause” of them. Simple as that.

Now that is not the case when one adheres to a Biblical/Pauline soteriology: “By GRACE through faith…not as a result of works.”

Where there is no existence there is “nothing”. Thus, we can say that whenever we cause the privation of our existence by committing sin we try to “turn back to the nothingness from whence we came.” And, to repeat, that is a defective act, and defective acts cannot be attributed to God.

OK Vincent! :whacky:

 

[guanophore]

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

So, Apophasis. We have come to the point where we can agree to disagree. You reject the teaching of the Church, and you cling to your hermeneutic. Why are you still here?

 

[apophasis]

This understanding of faith contains semi-pelagian overtones; it predicates “salvation by grace” on mere human effort.

No, grace is strickly on the divine side rooted in the cross of Christ.

Thus it ironically entails works-salvation.

Not at all. Scripture does not consider faith as a form of works:"For by grace you have been saved through faith…not as a result of works"Abviously this passage excludes faith as a form of works.

If you’re going to call faith a form of “works,” then you must call “grace” a form of works, as well. And then “not as a result of works” would be an oxymoron.

 

[apophasis]

So, Apophasis. We have come to the point where we can agree to disagree. You reject the teaching of the Church, and you cling to your hermeneutic. Why are you still here?

Because it’s a forum open to the public and this particular forum is called “Apologetics,” and the debate is concerning “works salvation.” Isn’t that why you’re here?

 

[guanophore]

No, grace is strickly on the divine side rooted in the cross of Christ.Not at all. Scripture does not consider faith as a form of works:"For by grace you have been saved through faith…not as a result of works"Abviously this passage excludes faith as a form of works.

If you’re going to call faith a form of “works,” then you must call “grace” a form of works, as well. And then “not as a result of works” would be an oxymoron.

If faith is not a form of works, then why did Jesus call it the work of God?

John 6:28-29
8 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Faith is the response of the believer to the unmerited favor of God. Faith requires action on the part of the person. Faith is also an act of the will. For the Catholic, believing does not happen only one time, at the moment of salvation, but must persevere throughout life until the Day of the Lord.

 

[Milliardo]

No, grace is strickly on the divine side rooted in the cross of Christ.Not at all. Scripture does not consider faith as a form of works:"For by grace you have been saved through faith…not as a result of works"Abviously this passage excludes faith as a form of works.

If you’re going to call faith a form of “works,” then you must call “grace” a form of works, as well. And then “not as a result of works” would be an oxymoron.

I’m sorry, but that is not Jesus’ thought, nor Paul’s for that matter. For Jesus, faith isn’t merely knowing Him, but obeying Him–working, in short. What was Paul’s point in Ephesians 2? His point is that God was moved by His love and mercy (cf. Titus 3:5–>another verse loved by sola scriptura proponents), and that is the grace that Paul speaks of. However, Paul didn’t say that faith or works are not needed for salvation. In verse 10 we see that Paul does in fact affirm the necessity of works in salvation. Protestants love to stop at verse 9, but never or rarely incorporate verse 10, which is rather strange.

 

[apophasis]

If faith is not a form of works, then why did Jesus call it the work of God?

John 6:28-29
8 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Faith is the response of the believer to the unmerited favor of God. Faith requires action on the part of the person. Faith is also an act of the will. For the Catholic, believing does not happen only one time, at the moment of salvation, but must persevere throughout life until the Day of the Lord.

In the John passage it’s the “work of God,” not a work of men. And the work of God is that they BELIEVE in Him whom He sent. To believe “in Him” is to believe in what He accomplished, once for all, on their behalf. Just as Abraham in Gen. 15:6 believed “in the Lord” and He reckoned it (his faith “in Him”) as righteousness. Paul’s gospel reflected this same theme:Rom. 4:5 “But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith (i.e., “in Him”) is reckoned as righteousness.”“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” Wasn’t the feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fish the day before a work of God for the purpose of them to believe “in Him?” What do you think, it was just a free meal?

John six is all about the work of God to the result that they believe “in Him” whom He has sent. Those who took Christ’s discourse in Jn. 6 literally totally missed His point. He was to be the object of their faith, because “in Him” only is eternal life (1 Jn. 5:11).

As the life of the manna, when eaten, was transferred to the eater, thereby sustaining the physical life of their fathers in the wilderness, even more the life of the resurrected Christ is transferred to the one who believes “in Him,” and His life is not temporal but eternal.

It is the work of God that you believe in Him for eternal life.

 

[Truthstalker]

In the John passage it’s the “work of God,” not a work of men. And the work of God is that they BELIEVE in Him whom He sent. To believe “in Him” is to believe in what He accomplished, once for all, on their behalf. Just as Abraham in Gen. 15:6 believed “in the Lord” and He reckoned it (his faith “in Him”) as righteousness. Paul’s gospel reflected this same theme:Rom. 4:5 “But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith (i.e., “in Him”) is reckoned as righteousness.”“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” Wasn’t the feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fish the day before a work of God for the purpose of them to believe “in Him?” What do you think, it was just a free meal?

John six is all about the work of God to the result that they believe “in Him” whom He has sent. Those who took Christ’s discourse in Jn. 6 literally totally missed His point. He was to be the object of their faith, because “in Him” only is eternal life (1 Jn. 5:11).

As the life of the manna, when eaten, was transferred to the eater, thereby sustaining the physical life of their fathers in the wilderness, even more the life of the resurrected Christ is transferred to the one who believes “in Him,” and His life is not temporal but eternal.

It is the work of God that you believe in Him for eternal life.

Here we go again. Belief is not just intellectual assent - belief is acting out obedience - in other words, works. Belief is not momentary but is to last your whole life.

 

[apophasis]

However, Paul didn’t say that faith or works are not needed for salvation.

He did say works are not required FOR salvation: “…not as a result of works.”

In verse 10 we see that Paul does in fact affirm the necessity of works in salvation.

Here you changed your wording from “for” to “in.” Why? Paul in verse 10 does not at all affirm the necessity of works “in” salvation, but that the saved in vss. 8-9, through faith apart from works, are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works.” These “good works” are not a requirement but a result of being newly created in Christ.

Protestants love to stop at verse 9, but never or rarely incorporate verse 10, which is rather trange.

Not true. We just interpret verse 10 correctly and in context.

 

[Truthstalker]

"OK Vincent! :whacky:

Unfortunately you only demonstrate you do not understand what Vincent is talking about. You need to understand what Thomas Aquinas was saying, and I doubt you have been even exposed to his thought.

 

[apophasis]

Unfortunately you only demonstrate you do not understand what Vincent is talking about. You need to understand what Thomas Aquinas was saying, and I doubt you have been even exposed to his thought.

It was far more important that TA had understood Paul.

 

[Truthstalker]

It was far more important that TA had understood Paul.

So you understand Paul but Aquinas didn’t? You’re that much smarter, wiser and informed?

 

[Milliardo]

He did say works are not required FOR salvation: “…not as a result of works.”

Then neither would faith be, as that was his point as well. But the point Paul makes, as again I will point out, is that it is God’s love through and through which caused Him to save us–that is His grace, His love. Without that love and mercy, then He would not deem it worthy to save us. However, as I also pointed out, you stopped at verse 9 without incorporating verse 10 into the equation, thereby making Paul say what he never intended to say. Paul’s point then, I will repeat, is that God loved us that this caused Him to save us, and that it isn’t because of our faith nor our works. However, that passage still does not negate the necessity of both in our salvation.

Here you changed you wording from “for” to “in.”

Doesn’t really matter that much–either the works are in salvation or for salvation, it still stands that they are a necessity. Not that hard to understand., and which thought I will expound further thus:

Why? Paul in verse 10 does not at all affirm the necessity of works “in” salvation, but that the saved in vss. 8-9, through faith apart from works, are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works.” These “good works” are not a requirement but a result of being newly created in Christ.Not true. We just interpret verse 10 correctly and in context.

Again, where is there that negates the fact that works aren’t necessary for salvation? There is none. You would have to incorporate the Judgment passages as well into the equation, which are vital. These form a bigger picture. Now, as to your point itself, does it not say we were created to do good works? That is his point in verse 10. Not a requirement then? It does not say so, on the contrary. What is affirmed here is that we are exactly to do that, not merely because it is a result of being in Christ, but exactly because this is what Christ calls us to do–continue that all the way to the though that we should live in them. There you see precisely the necessity to abide by His words, and live them. So, again, not a requirement? I see here the failure of one to read it as it is, and make the passage read what one sees fit in order to make sola scriptura work.

 

[guanophore]

He did say works are not required FOR salvation: "…not as a result of works."Here you changed your wording from “for” to “in.” Why? Paul in verse 10 does not at all affirm the necessity of works “in” salvation, but that the saved in vss. 8-9, through faith apart from works, are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works.” These “good works” are not a requirement but a result of being newly created in Christ.Not true. We just interpret verse 10 correctly and in context.

So, you think you will still be saved, after believing upon the Lord Jesus, even if you then refuse to walk in the good works which he created for you?

Also, who is the author of these “good works”? You say that faith in God comes from God, and not from the human person. Are these more “works of God”? Does the believer have any responsibility or participation, or should the believer just function like an automaton?

 

[Bishopite]

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.”

Ah…but why stop at verse 9? Go to verse 10 “we were created in Christ for good works that we should walk in them.”
Walk in what? What is it we should walk in?? Good works.

And if good works aren’t important then how come Paul says in Romans 2:6 that we will be judged by our works?
“who “will render to each one according to his deeds” 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;” (KJV)

I simply respond with Pauline theology, not my own (I have no authority - and actually, nor does Rome).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:

No you respond with you own theological novum, not of Paul and not of the early Church either. Faith isn’t a gift from God? Then obviously you got faith on your own.

But to respond to your question. Yes, gifts can carry a responsibility for the one who received it.

Ah…yes responsiblity is part of receiving a gift. God’s gifts to us like children like it says in Psalms 127:3-5 DO carry responsibilities as you’ve just honestly admitted. So goes the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ also carries responsibility.

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.”​

The gift is always a gift, yes but that “gift” can be abused so that that “gift” is nonfunctional, like the child that speeds recklessly and totals the vehicle he/she received as a gift. The “gift” becomes nonfunctional by the person who received the give because he/she abused it and the maker of the car wasn’t to blame nor was the giver of the car.
And Rom 11:29 are speaking of God’s predestining those who DO and WILL receive the gifts from God. God won’t revoke them, for He is a just and honest God, but we can so abuse those gifts as to make them nonfunctional and useless; so goes our gifts of faith and obedience, which Paul uses in Romans 1:5 and 16:26.

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.

Because he/she had nothing to do with the gift doesn’t mean he/she can’t abuse that gift once received.

Now, if you expected your child to pay you back for the purchase of it, then it was never truly a gift, was it?

Ah…but we Catholics nor the Bible says that we are trying to pay back God for anything, that’s a straw man. God does NOT require a pay back but He DOES require obedience in faith, read Romans 1:5 and 16:26…the obedience of faith says Paul. Without faith it is impossible to please God Heb 11:6.

It was merely a loan. The same principle would apply if you attached stipulations to it.

Your logic is flawed since you are saying our gifts of salvation or works are merely a loan. Stipulations are always attached to everything. Without faith it is impossible to please God, so “FAITH” would be a stipulation, right?

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

I’m not trying to sound rude, but you are honestly taking a blind eye and choosing to ignore the Bible and deal with the reality that we must do good works and will be judged by them.
Please give me a proper hermenuetic on Romans 2:6?
Paul says in Roman 2:14-15 “but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 **who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)” **

One must obey the moral law perfectly but one can only obey it perfectly by Gods grace and faith. See 1 Cor 6:9-11 explains those who don’t obey the moral law of Christ.

 

[Odell]

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."Of course.

Are you telling us that once you acept Jesus that he has taken away our free will? We cant freely then reject Jesus after acepting him? That my friend would not be true love. God wants us to want him.

If faith is not a form of works, then why did Jesus call it the work of God?

John 6:28-29
8 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Faith is the response of the believer to the unmerited favor of God. Faith requires action on the part of the person. Faith is also an act of the will. For the Catholic, believing does not happen only one time, at the moment of salvation, but must persevere throughout life until the Day of the Lord.

BINGO

In the John passage it’s the “work of God,” not a work of men. And the work of God is that they BELIEVE in Him whom He sent. To believe “in Him” is to believe in what He accomplished, once for all, on their behalf. Just as Abraham in Gen. 15:6 believed “in the Lord” and He reckoned it (his faith “in Him”) as righteousness. Paul’s gospel reflected this same theme:Rom. 4:5 “But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith (i.e., “in Him”) is reckoned as righteousness.”“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” Wasn’t the feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fish the day before a work of God for the purpose of them to believe “in Him?” What do you think, it was just a free meal?

So you admit that faith is a gift of God but yet works are not?

Lets see what the bibel says

1 Cor 12:4-6 “There are different kind of spiritual gifts but the same spirit there are different forms of service but the same God who PROVIDES all of them in everyone there are different workings but the same god who produces all of them in everyone.”

He must be talking about works of the Law right?

I wouldnt thank so.

verse 8 to one is given through the spirit the expression of wisdon to another knowledge to another faith by the same spirit to another gifts of healing by the one spirit to another MIGHTY DEEDS to another prophecy.

what we do is from God yet you try to convince us otherwise

(Gal 5:6) “only faith working threw love counts for anything.” That is how we put faith in action WORKING threw love. Faith has to work to count for anything it cant be by itself.

I got a question could not Paul when talking about works that do not count could he just possibly be talking about mosaic law?

I have a hard problem with your interpritation because it seems that Paul is telling us that these works that are a gift form God are pointless.

[QUTOE]John six is all about the work of God to the result that they believe “in Him” whom He has sent. Those who took Christ’s discourse in Jn. 6 literally totally missed His point. He was to be the object of their faith, because “in Him” only is eternal life (1 Jn. 5:11).

they just saw him walk on water and multiply fishes but walk away because of a symbolic meaning. right.

 

[Odell]

Not true. We just interpret verse 10 correctly and in context.

what is verse ten in context I havent heard it yet and I am interested in hearing it.