"Works" Salvation?

[kaycee]

Actually that is my very contention. Protestants don’t understand grace at all. Is there one kind of Grace? And what is grace?

Biblical Grace is unmerited favor. Biblical Grace is no longer Grace when works are added. Works create wages due.

Rom 4:4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Rc grace is received as one attends the sacraments (channels of grace). Ones grace level increases with more good works, confession, attendance at mass and the other sacraments. Apparently the treasury of merit contains the mixed grace of Christ, Mary and the prayers of the saints. One must die in a state of grace to merit eternal life.

 

[kaycee]

I am quite familiar with the passage. You got it from a catholic book after all.

Actually Isaiah a Jewish book.

Are you saying Jesus took your place on the cross? You seem to ber implying it. (and it is an oft uttered phrase) It’s a simple question.

However noting the passage:
What did Jesus die for? Our sins.
What did he not die for? To relieve us of our responsibility as sons of God to help others.

Is there a consequence for the later?
As a baptist recently told me. "
“Any person who is not trusting in Jesus to the point of faithfully obeying him is on the road to hell”

He got that one right.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Yes, sins past present and future!

We should absolutely trust Jesus and obey HIM to the fullest! AND now that God has saved us He has given us the ability thru the Spirit to WANT to do good and obey HIM. Good works dont save, Jesus Saves!

 

[Nicene]

Biblical Grace is unmerited favor. Biblical Grace is no longer Grace when works are added. Works create wages due.

Rom 4:4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Rc grace is received as one attends the sacraments (channels of grace). Ones grace level increases with more good works, confession, attendance at mass and the other sacraments. Apparently the treasury of merit contains the mixed grace of Christ, Mary and the prayers of the saints. One must die in a state of grace to merit eternal life.

A sacrament is an oath, that is what the word means, and yes it is a means of grace.

Whatever you mean by mixed grace I have no idea, but you avoided the simple question I asked and instead decided to inject and attack on the church.

Of course we know that for example that protestants don’t believe in the oath (sacrament of marriage) and there is no grace involved in marraige. I do remember 1 Timothy remarking on this:

1 Tim 4:1: Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2: through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,
3: who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

So care to address the question I posed about grace. Is there one kind of grace? (gift from God)

So far you have been saying that is the case, correct me if I am wrong.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually Isaiah a Jewish book.

Yes of course it is but your Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate which is a Catholic Bible.

Yes, sins past present and future!

We should absolutely trust Jesus and obey HIM to the fullest! AND now that God has saved us He has given us the ability thru the Spirit to WANT to do good and obey HIM. Good works dont save, Jesus Saves!

So since you have been saved. You have not sinned? I find that hard to believe since human often fail to overcome temptation.

What if I killed someone? Does it mean my salvation is lost, or if I’m a doctor it is ok to kill babies through abortion.

 

[kaycee]

By the way, you are saved by both. you just can’t say it. If you don’t have works, you have nothing. If you have all the faith to move mountains but have not agape, you am nothing (1 Cor 13)

Faith alone is nothing. It is no faith at all.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Mental assent is nothing. Saving Faith is everything!

I am not sure you really believe its Faith and works.

Are you saved by baptism? Do you maintain your salvation by works?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mental assent is nothing. Saving Faith is everything!

I am not sure you really believe its Faith and works.

Are you saved by baptism? Do you maintain your salvation by works?

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

No, I’m sorry. That verse does not contain the word “alone”. You are attempting to make the Bible say we are justified by faith “alone,” when the Bible nowhere says such a thing. However, the crystal clear words of Scripture do say that “a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.” Who is it that is trying to fit the Bible to his beliefs, versus just going by the crystal clear words of Scripture?

How absurd; the just shall live by faith; notice that faith stands alone; there is no qualifier.
Randy Carson:

Oh, I’m sorry. You can’t answer a question with a question. The crystal clear words of Scripture say this: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Don’t unbelievers go to Hell? So, if he is worse than an unbeliever, it probably means he is in a very low pit of Hell, doesn’t it? The crystal clear words of Scripture say that a man’s salvation is affected by his works…or lack thereof in this case.

How absurd; See 1 Jn 1:9.

Even your sect recognizes your absurdity in this; from the CCC: 1422 “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion.”
Randy Carson:

Again, not the answer we were looking for. The crystal clear words of Scripture say this: “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father Who is in Heaven.” So, if the Father has prepared works for us beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph 2:10), yet we refuse to walk in them, we’re not really doing His will, are we? And, if we don’t do His will, do we still get to go to Heaven? The crystal clear words of Scripture say no.

How absurd. Comparing unbelievers to believers—a bit of a category error; (hint: unbelievers can’t do the will of God).
Randy Carson:

I’m going to give you partial credit for this one…you at least knew what James said thus anticipating my response. You’re not getting full credit because you avoided telling us what YOU think. The crystal clear words of Scripture say this: “So faith, by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” So, first thing to notice is that it is possible for faith to be by itself. It is possible to have faith without works; but, faith without works is dead. In other words, it cannot save you. Listen again to the crystal clear words of Scripture: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” Do you catch the analogy? For physical life, we must have body and spirit. For spiritual life, we must have faith and works. Faith is compared to the body, and works are compared to the spirit. Can you live if you do not have a spirit? No! So, as body and soul are both necessary for physical life, then faith and works are both necessary for spiritual life - just as Catholics believe.

How absurd; JACK HAWKINS—educate this Catholic, please.
Randy Carson:

Your answer is, “No.” Yet the crystal clear words of Scripture say this: “For He will render to every man according to his WORKS; to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give ETERNAL LIFE, but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” I believe that…all Catholics believe these crystal clear words of Scripture. But you don’t. Again, who is it that is trying to fit the Bible to his beliefs, versus just going by the crystal clear words of Scripture?

How absurd; you mark me down because your clueless as to what is being is said
in Romans 2?

 

[kaycee]

Yes of course it is but your Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate which is a Catholic Bible.

Actually my bibles NIV and NASB are from the Alexandrian family, older than the Vulgate and in Greek.

So since you have been saved. You have not sinned? I find that hard to believe since human often fail to overcome temptation.

What if I killed someone? Does it mean my salvation is lost, or if I’m a doctor it is ok to kill babies through abortion.

I recommend you go back and read Romans 6 again as you keep bringing up the same protest that Paul addresses there.

 

[sandusky]

Ok… I see what you are saying now and understand your reasoning. You are “saved” and don’t have to obey the 10 commandments in order to be saved because that would be a work and works are all bad.

Nevertheless, even though the first commandment says in Deut. 5:7 (KJV) “You shall have no other gods before Me” to “YOU” as a “saved” Christian that isn’t applicable, therefore you can worship any god you want! Isn’t that good news?

Strawmen.

Read the thread.

 

[Nicene]

Actually Isaiah a Jewish book.

Yes, sins past present and future!

And the million dollar answer is:

2 Pet 1:9: For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his past sins.

Rom 3:25: whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;

Why do you contradict the word of God?

We should absolutely trust Jesus and obey HIM to the fullest! AND now that God has saved us He has given us the ability thru the Spirit to WANT to do good and obey HIM.

Cough Pelagianism. “My works, not Gods.” You reaching out through your own effort instead of acknowledging God as the source of works and it is because of his grace.

Good works dont save, Jesus Saves!

Now there is a shocker.

So lets see, believe the traditions of men or believe Jesus and the apostles. Gonna go with Jesus and the apostles on this one, sorry.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually my bibles NIV and NASB are from the Alexandrian family, older than the Vulgate and in Greek.

Really now. Here is some history lesson for you.

During Jesus’ time there were two Old Testament’s in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) also known as the Septuagint, which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Comparisons of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that an accurate “eyewitness” exists to the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the Septuagint in 80% of his Old Testament References. The Septuagint was the Scripture of Jesus’ time. It has the order of Bible books that we find in modern Bibles, the Palestinian canon has a completely different order. The NIV Bible use the Septuagint’s order of books, yet it leaves out some of the books (Deuterocanonical books) that we find there.

The Alexandrian and Palestinian canons were almost identical except the Septuagint contained the seven Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants call the Apocrypha. (“Canon” means the list of books) The Apostles and the early Church including the early Church fathers used the Septuagint. The African Synod’s of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) also approved it.

Evangelicals favour the Palestinian canon because it is the one that the Jews ratified in 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. Catholics feel that this Jewish council was not binding by God because God’s authority was passed over to Christians at the Pentecost (Acts 2:1) sixty years earlier.

I got an email that said:

Plus Jerome never included them [apocrypha] in the canon of the Vulgate, but kept them seprate from the inspired scripture. The Catholic Church never Offically declared this books inspired until 1546. The Church may have considered them in the canon, but never Officaly declared them as scripture.

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

Here is a snip from Columbia University (Secular institution)

"As to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Jerome made hasty translations of Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther; the rest he did not touch, hence the Vulgate includes Old Latin versions of them." [answers.com/topic/vulgate](http://www.answers.com/topic/vulgate)

The Vulgate always included the Deuteros. Four were translated by Jerome and the rest of them used the old Latin. In other words the Church always accepted them.

The Deuterocanonical Books were not added to the Bible at the council of Trent like many opponents to them say. Christians always considered them part of the Bible. The Latin Vulgate which was written in 400 A.D. by Jerome, included the Deuterocanaonical Books. Their formal acceptance happened at Trent as a response to the Reform. This was the first time the Deuterocanonical books were called into serious question. Here’s some heady academic stuff from my friend Art Sippo describing the ins and outs of the Catholic relationship to the Deuterocanonical books.

I’ve heard some Evangelicals say the Deuterocanonical books don’t belong in the Bible because they are unbiblical. To me that is a circular argument. Martin Luther removed them from his version, (he also wanted to pull the Books of James and Revelation) Now, based on this new canon, Evangelicals are saying the Deuteros are unbiblical. If the Deuteros were in the Bible from the beginning, which is what history reveals, then I would say they are biblical by their very definition.

What those who hold that they are unbiblical are really saying is that they have rejected them because they Deuteros support the Catholic position on Purgatory and praying for the souls there.

I asked Dr. Art Sippo to explain a bit of the history of the Septuagint which is the Greek Old Testament that Jesus quotes from most often.

There is no single text corpus called The Septuagint (LXX). There are actually several families and the vast majority of them are Christian in origin well after the 1st Century. We know that they [Deuterocanonical books] were in virtually all of the Christian collections of the time. That is the point that counts. When Christians collected the OT in the first 3 centuries AD, they INVARIABLY used the LXX and included some if not all of the deuteros and sometimes included other works that we consider apocryphal. We know this because we have several codices (i.e., bound books) from the early Church which appear to have been created by Imperial edict right after the Council of Nicea in 325. We also have lists of books from the 2nd Century (e.g., the Muratorian Fragment) and the testimony of several Fathers to that effect starting with Justin Martyr in150 AD. The Fathers also extensively quoted from the Deuteros from the late 1st Century onwards. Until the mid 4th Century, no one seriously challenged the long OT Canon.

I went to a lecture by Peter Flint, the author of the only existing English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (published in 1999, www.deadseascrolls.org)). His book on the scrolls was declared book of the year 2003 by the Institute of Biblical Archeology in Washington DC. He made it plain that the Deuterocononical Books (Apocrypha) were included with the other books of the Old Testament in the scrolls. They were found together. This helps to confirm that the Deuterocanonical books.

Professor Flint, who is not a Catholic made a powerful statement. He said “you cannot have a Bible without the Church.” When I asked him about it during the book signing after the lecture he said to me “Without the Church you have a bunch of books. With the Church you have a Bible.” (Lecture Feb. 13, 2004, Ottawa, Canada)

 

[Mannyfit75]

If the Bible requires the Church for its Canon (list of Books to include), I would think that the decision process to decide on the Canon would have to be “inspired” by God. I think the same kind of Grace would be required to decide on what books to include in the Bible Canon as was required to write the books in the first place. To me there are 4 possibilities.

1. God did not inspire the decision on the Canon.
2. God gave the Jews that Grace in the 2nd century A.D. when they chose the Masoretic Canon (after they rejected his son, the Messiah)
3. God gave the Reformation that Grace in 1546
4. God give the Catholic Church that Grace at Carthage in 397 A.D.

I can’t imagine God being OK with there being two Canons floating around so I would rule out #1. I can’t imagine God waiting 1550 years until the Reformation to inspire a decision on the Canon. So I also would rule out #3. That leaves me with the option that either the Jews were given that Grace in the 2nd century A.D. or the Catholic Church was given that Grace at Carthage. I have difficulty believing God would give more grace to the Jews after they rejected his Son the Messiah than they would give the early Christians who used the Deuteros. So I believe that Grace was given to the early Christians who used the Dueteros and ratified their inclusion in the Canon in 397 A.D. at Carthage.

So that’s the Catholic reasoning for including those books. I’ve pulled a tremendous amount inspiration from them. I was particularly struck by books of Tobit, Suzanne, Wisdom, and Judith. If you haven’t read them, please give them a spin and judge for yourself. Martin Luther was totally into Tobit. It formed part of Luther’s Bible.
Timeline of the decisions on the books of the Bible (Canon)

AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written.

AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, taught that there were two Gods:
Yahweh, the cruel God of the Old Testament, and Abba, the kind father of the New Testament. Marcion eliminated the Old Testament as Scriptures and, since he was anti-Semitic, kept from the New Testament only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deleted references to Jesus’s Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”, the first to be compiled, forced the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four Gospels and Letters of Paul.

AD 200: The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D…

382 --Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393 A.D. --the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

AD 397: The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

787 A.D. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

AD 1536: In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

The timeline section is by Mark Bonocore & Bob Stanley.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually my bibles NIV and NASB are from the Alexandrian family, older than the Vulgate and in Greek.

I recommend you go back and read Romans 6 again as you keep bringing up the same protest that Paul addresses there.

Roman 6 verse what? I have to look at it to be certain.

 

[Nicene]

Mental assent is nothing. Saving Faith is everything!

I am not sure you really believe its Faith and works.

Are you saved by baptism? Do you maintain your salvation by works?

Of course.

1 Pet 2:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22: who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Why is this? Because:

Rom 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

And I know I have to walk as he walked:

4: He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
5: but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:
6: he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Because those who do

31: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32: Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33: and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35: for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36: I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37: Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38: And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39: And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’
40: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

and those who don’t:

41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’
45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’
46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

OSAS, the doctrine of the damned, they just don’t know it because they don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus.

One is forced to ask why you contradict God so much. His word is quite plain. Why do you teach that you are saved without following Jesuus commandments and walking as he walked? Would you like to see what Jesus had to say on the subject in the gospel of John?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Bishopite]

Biblical Grace is unmerited favor. Biblical Grace is no longer Grace when works are added. Works create wages due.

Rom 4:4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Rc grace is received as one attends the sacraments (channels of grace). Ones grace level increases with more good works, confession, attendance at mass and the other sacraments. Apparently the treasury of merit contains the mixed grace of Christ, Mary and the prayers of the saints. One must die in a state of grace to merit eternal life.

"To help understand the principle of works under the auspices of grace, or what we may now introduce as “gracious merit,” we can borrow from Paul’s analogy of the employer/employee relationship he used in Romans 4:4. On the one hand, if the employee contracts with the employer to be paid X amount of dollars for X amount of work, this arrangment is formalized in a written contract, Whether of not the employer likes or trusts his employee, he is nonetheless legally obligated to pay him for the work performed. If, on the other hand, the employer asks the employee to do some personal work for him outside of the legal contract----work that is not “on company time” or is “off the clock,” as it were— and promises to pay the employee and appropriate sum, such an arrangment is not under the legal contract of employment. Although we can say that the employee has “merited” payment by the mere fact that he has worked, nevertheless, for work that is “not on company time” the employer is not contractually obligated to pay the employee. Yet because the employer’s peronal integrity, and perhaps because of a personal relationship he has cultivated with the employee, he will gladly pay what he feels the extra work is worth even though he is not legally required to do so. The employer could very easily renege on his promise to pay for work performed “off the clock.” Yet because he is honest and just he will not stoop to such underhanded behavior. God’s relationship to man is very simular…God cannot be put in a postition of being legally obligated to pay man for his work. Outside of the legal framework, however, God can pay man what God thinks his work is worth because God is honest and just. Because of his personal integrity, and because he has cultivated a personal relationship with the individual, God can repay out of his graciousness because for God it is the proper thing to do. This principle of God’s dealing with man is stated no better than Hebrews 6:10, “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.” (Not by faith alone, Sungenis pages 33-34)

 

[Nicene]

Actually my bibles NIV and NASB are from the Alexandrian family, older than the Vulgate and in Greek.

Kaycee, the NIV is a piece of dung. If you want me tomarrow to address it’s highhandedness and awful translations of verses I’ll be happy to. No serious student of the bible uses the NIV.

There are some real beauts which are abused. Begin with Peter on baptism where they substitute symbol (blatantly) in place of antitype or prefigurement. The actual greek word is antitypon. Talk about altering the bible to sell a doctrine. sheesh

NASB is ok, NKJV is better (but still has some issues) Toss the NIV where it belongs.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Bishopite]

Strawmen.

Read the thread.

I’m sorry that you have “choosen” to avoid the question.
I’ve read most of the thread and what you are teaching is antinoniamism, something virtually NO Protestant evangelicals moral theology accepts, that’s why they oppose abortion, homsexuality, same sex marriage as “immoral.”

Again, here is what Merriam Webster defines as antinomianism…

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

*Also I thought I’d add this verse…
Proverbs 16:6–“By love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil.”
*

 

[dcdurel]

In my experiance, most Protestants claim they go by the bible, but when you quote Jesus or St. Paul and the necessity of obeying God in order to be rewarded with heaven, (not earned), they simply reject those verses.

In other words, in my experience, evangelical and funamentalist Protestants seem to only accept the verses that agree with their personal opinions, which they learned mostly from their religions.
The rest they simply ignore.

When Jesus says, “if you wish to enter into life, keep the commanments”, they ignore Him.

When He gives the teaching on final judment in Matthew 25, they ignore him.

When St. Paul says:
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.

They ignore him.

When you point out that St. Paul says that those who have faith and continue in their mortal sins, as in Galatians 5:19-21, will not go to heaven, they ignore him.

That is my personal experience. In other words, they really don’t accept all the bible, but only those verses they agree with. And they seem to have no problem with this attitude at all.

I was never raised Protestant, so I don’t understand this way of thinking. I was taught we must believe all of God’s written word.
But I am beginning to realize that they have no problem with this way of thinking, it is normal for them only to accept parts of the bible.

 

[apophasis]

How does this correlate with what Jesus Himself said in Jn. 5:24?

I’ve answer this question before… It is not contradictory, If you believe him, that means you must do what he says… if you dont do what he says, then by your actions, you are saying you dont believe him… Christ also has a very specific name for people that ‘hear’ and believe’ but do not do… Hypocrites…

Based on what you answered above it is evident you cannot correlate what Jesus states in Jn. 5:24 with your claim of a future judgment to determne one’s salvation"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

Apophasis: If you are not assured salvation UNTIL your “day of Judgment” then, ultimately, on what basis is your salvation determined? And how is it you can lose something you never really had?

Heisenburg: first question. You can judge yourself based on how you live and compared to scripture if you are following the way Christ demands. Thats how you know…

I asked if you, a RC, are not assured of salvation, as you say, UNTIL “your day of judgment,” on what basis then (at that future judgment) will your salvation be determined? You failed to answer this question.

Heisenburger: question 2) There is an erroneous assumption that you cant be saved and then unsaved… I answer that question with yes, you can loose your salvation by not being obedient to Christ.

If you are not assured salvation UNTIL your “day of judgment” then you’re not truly saved UNTIL then (if you are at all). So how can you lose something you never actually had in the first place? And again, how does this future “day of judgment” which determines one’s salvation correlate with what Jesus said in Jn. 5:24? Please be specific!

So, If you please
yes or no…

If I have a saving faith, but never do what is in the bible, will god let me into heaven.

In Christ

I will answer this question when you properly answer mine.