"Works" Salvation?

[apophasis]

The so called “Rome” moved away from the cross is a misunderstanding in your part.

Actually, the inserted doctrine of “initial” justification is a misunderstanding on Rome’s part. She has been misguided and must be guided back to the Pauline teachings of the cross, where the redemptive work of Christ was, once for all, accomplished and is the sole cause for God justifying, “as a gift,” the sinner who believes in Him.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, the inserted doctrine of “initial” justification is a misunderstanding on Rome’s part. She has been misguided and must be guided back to the Pauline teachings of the cross, where the redemptive work of Christ was, once for all, accomplished and is the sole cause for God justifying, “as a gift,” the sinner who believes in Him.

Not according to the 4 Gospels. The Salvation history has shown that Jesus established a physical church upon Peter, and he gave this church teaching authority to “bind and loose.” The Church had infallible teachings in faith and moral issue.

Jesus Christ death on the cross is once in for all but it is more than that. We must persevere to the end that we may falter. If you read Acts careful, Peter preached to the people of Jerusalem and that all must be baptized. Then one of them, “What should we do?”

Peter said, “Repent and Be baptized.” Those are actions. Belief is not even enough to get you save. For the Devil himself believe in God with fear and tremble.

We are saved but we can lose our salvation when we sin. I would also like to point out that not all Protestants believe what you believe (OSAS). I have open discussion with this with a Non-Denominational Christian preacher and totally disagree with the doctrine of OSAS.

The Gospels and the Church have remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ. OSAS is concept instituted by John Calvin in 1500s. It’s a new doctrine that came out of Protestantism.

Early Christians do not believe in OSAS, and not all Protestant believe in it.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
*I didn’t see it (the resurrection)…!!

Why should I believe? Under your rules, it’s irrational for me to believe in the resurrection, as I have no “rational” means of believing it.*

Keikiolu, do you believe that the Revolutionary War occurred?

If so, what is the basis for your belief in that?

Why,… the Magisterium, of course…!!

They say to listen to the appropriate authority concerning the appropriate area of study.

The SINGLE point of authority concerning Christian knowledge is the Magisterium of the (Catholic) Church.

Any other questions?

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

 

[guanophore]

Actually, the inserted doctrine of “initial” justification is a misunderstanding on Rome’s part. She has been misguided and must be guided back to the Pauline teachings of the cross, where the redemptive work of Christ was, once for all, accomplished and is the sole cause for God justifying, “as a gift,” the sinner who believes in Him.

Please demonstrate from the teachings of the church where you find this error.

 

[heisenburg]

Apop…

Very good point, but like any gift, I can break it, mess it up, destroy it, and deny it. So to with the gift of salvation and the mark that is instilled in ones soul…

I can tarnish it with sin, I can deny it by breaking the commandments. I can throw it back in gods face when i don’t help those that are in need.

Like the egg, it was given to us freely. It changes who we are in a sense because it changes how we walk, run etc… we don’t want to break the egg…

By Not acting appropriately, we break the egg that was freely given to us.

The Mark is the Mark of Baptism, and having faith in the lord. I think you will agree. That mark is always a part of who we are… It is that mark that allows us to continue to ask for forgiveness when we screw up. Because of that mark, we can hope for the inheritance. We just need to protect the egg, and ask for another one when we drop it.

This is something Non-Christians do not have. If they are not a Christian, no mark is on them. They were never even given an egg to drop.

In Christ

 

[heisenburg]

Apop…

Very good point, but like any gift, I can break it, mess it up, destroy it, and deny it. So to with the gift of salvation and the mark that is instilled in ones soul…

I can tarnish it with sin, I can deny it by breaking the commandments. I can throw it back in gods face when i don’t help those that are in need.

Like the egg, it was given to us freely. It changes who we are in a sense because it changes how we walk, run etc… we don’t want to break the egg… We are a new creature because of the egg that was given to us

By Not acting appropriately, we break the egg that was freely given to us.

The Mark is the Mark of Baptism, and having faith in the lord. I think you will agree. That mark is always a part of who we are… It is that mark that allows us to continue to ask for forgiveness when we screw up. Because of that mark, we can hope for the inheritance. We just need to protect the egg, and ask for another one when we drop it. However, if we drop the egg, and don’t ask for another… there is nothing we can do to get that omelet. does that mean we never had an egg to begin with? No… it just means that we refused the omelet we were promised after having already received the egg

This is something Non-Christians do not have. If they are not a Christian, no mark is on them. They were never even given an egg to drop.

As mentioned… we can’t earn salvation, but we can blow it.

In Christ

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t see justification as a “process” at all. The idea of being a “process” is strictly RC - not Biblical. The notion of it being a process is rooted in Rome’s doctrine of “initial” justification. A phrase/notion not found/taught in Scripture. Justification, according to Scripture, is a gift (not a process) by His grace through (the cooperative efforts of both the Savior and the sinner? NO!) the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24).

The false doctrine of “initial” justification demonstrates how Rome has moved away from the cross. The efforts of the Reformation was to get back to it - to the glory of Christ.

Justification as an ongoing process

In Genesis, we read: “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

Commenting on this passage, the Apostle Paul wrote:

“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ “ (Romans 4:1-3)

If justification is a one-time event as many Protestants claim it to be, then Abraham could not receive justification either before or after this event in Genesis 15:6. However, the Bible states he did both.

First, consider this passage:

“By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.” (Hebrews 11:8)

The subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith as can be seen from the opening verses: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.” (Hebrews 11:1-2) One is not commended for one’s faith unless it is saving faith. Therefore, the faith that Abraham is commended for in Hebrews 11:8 must be saving faith. But when did Abraham have this saving faith? It was “when called to go to a place he would later receive” and he “obeyed and went”.

The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4, three chapters before he is justified in Genesis 15:6. From this, we see that Abraham was justified before, years before, he was justified in Genesis 16:6.

But that’s not all. James tells us:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” (James 2:21-23 KJV)

The account of the testing of Abraham is found in Genesis 22 which is well after Genesis 15:6.

We see, therefore, that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: Genesis 12, when he left Haran in faith; in Genesis 15, when he believed God’s promise concerning his descendants; and in Genesis 22, when he offered his son, Isaac, on the altar. As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process that continues throughout the believer’s life.

*Adapted from *The Salvation Controversy by James Akin.

 

[Truthstalker]

Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.

Canon XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also** the good merits of him that is justified, by the good works which he performs** through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life— if so be, however, that he depart in grace,—and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent)

Trent obviously sees it differently. RC grace is an aid(gift) that enables the catholic to “truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life”

Not so obvious. This can be read in different ways. You can read it with different preconceptions. The Catholic catechism explains it with a different understanding than you present. As the Catholics are the heirs of Trent, I would expect them to better be able to explain it than you, for example. You read into it what you want to see.

You seem to be absolutely insistent on proving to Catholics that they believe something they deny believing. Curious.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

You seem to be absolutely insistent on proving to Catholics that they believe something they deny believing. Curious.

This issue has comsumed most of this thread. Why do non-catholics insist on spreading rumors and falsehood regarding the Catholic faith? It certainly seems to be the unchristian thing to do, proving their own disbelief of faith. They must be to afraid to want to understand the Truth.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I don’t see justification as a “process” at all. The idea of being a “process” is strictly RC - not Biblical.

The bible comes from the Catholic Church. Either accept that and the deposit of faith that goes along with it or choose to accept the smaller part that you can understand.

The notion of it being a process is rooted in Rome’s doctrine of “initial” justification. A phrase/notion not found/taught in Scripture. Justification, according to Scripture, is a gift (not a process) by His grace through (the cooperative efforts of both the Savior and the sinner? NO!) the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24).

Some day by God’s grace you may understand all of Christ’s teachings and be able to accept them. He brought you here to this site for a reason. It was for a better reason than to spread your rumors misunderstandings.

The false doctrine of “initial” justification demonstrates how Rome has moved away from the cross. The efforts of the Reformation was to get back to it - to the glory of Christ.

If Rome moved away from the cross, ever, then there could be no Christianity in the world. Historical Christian fact, you can disagree if that makes you “feel” better, but it can’t be disproven.

 

[Milliardo]

  	 				Good works come into play after we are saved and not before or even during salvation.

This always gets my goat whenever I read it. Looking at it, we can say then that the Hindu does not do anything good, since he is not saved. Ditto for the Muslim, or the Buddhist, etc. That is simply illogical, and does not jive at all with common sense and experience. I see many Muslims who do a lot of good than the average Christian does. I see a lot of so-called born again Christians who are lying, womanizing, gossiping leeches. There must be something very wrong with this kind of thinking to delude one’s self into thinking that he can only do good after he’s saved…or even think he’s exempt from doing anything good because he is saved.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

doesn’t say Abraham is justified by his works. He says Abraham was justified by his works. Certainly he is justified before men, but according to James he was justified at the time when nobody was around. The grammar doesn’t allow for this interpretation.

The bolded and underlined above brings to mind the axiom, easy to do, is easy to say. It’s easy to say what you have said, it is another thing to support it.

Lazerlike42:

On top of this, Jesus taught rather harshly against being justified before men. He said to let our lights shine, but so that people would see His love and come to Him, not to justify ourselves before men. This latter idea He in no uncertain terms told us to avoid. If this interpretation were correct, then James would be exhorting us to violate Jesus’ commands. James is answering an imaginary interlocutor in order to teach that works are important in the life of a Christian, not literally asking someone to show their works.

What you are doing here is lifting Jesus’ words from their context, and using them to scold James; need I remind you that Jesus is behind the writing of James epistle? Your argument ignores the words of James, you show me…I’ll show you…you see…you see.

Lazerlike42:

The problem with this is that it contradicts James’ words. James identifies the faith and works as two seperate entities each of which are participating in the justification of the individual. He cannot simply be referring to a faith that works, because he seperates the two and attributes justification to each of them.

He does, in that verse, connect the two, and attributes justification to each; but he does so in harmony with the overall thrust of the passage: Can a faith without works save? Again, the idea of being able to identify a saving faith is the point of the passage; it is clear from Gen 15, that Abraham was justified before God years prior to Isaac, and on the basis of the future promise of Isaac.

Lazerlike42:

He also says that Abraham’s faith was completed by his works, but a faith that works cannot be completed by works, because it already has works as a defining aspect of it. If you have to add works to faith to make it complete, that by definition means it is incomplete without works.

”Faith without works is dead?”

Lazerlike42:

Also, Hebrews 11, in pointing to examples to follow of people with faith, points to Abraham as having faith back in Genesis 12. He was justified then, but St. Paul says he was justified in Genesis 15, and James points to Genesis 22. Even if we toss out James because of our disagreement, we nevertheless see that Abraham was in fact justified at least twice, proving at least one of the two ideas that either justification can be lost, or that it can increase.

The bolded part is an assumption; Moses says that Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6; James says even the demons believe, and tremble; Jesus says many have faith, but fall by the wayside, but the faith that endures, and produces fruit, is the true faith.

While Hebrews 11 says that Abraham went out in faith, scripture nowhere says that Abraham was justified by his Gen 12 faith, but by his Gen 15 faith. There it is clearly said that Abraham, ”believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” Clearly, something is fundamentally different between the Gen 12 faith, and the Gen 15 faith, such that by the latter, He is said to have been justified, and by the former the issue of justification is silent.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #389)

Lazerlike42:

In fact, this interpretation directly contradicts the very point you made earlier

It does not, and you’ll see why in a moment.

Lazerlike42:

An unjust person can never possibly be justified by works by the very fact that they are unjust. If St. Paul is talking about “if someone were able to do good persistently,” he is talking about a logically impossible situation, not merely one that is impossible by the current situation. He can’t be explaining how it would work if someone were able to do all these good things an keep the law perfectly, because that is not true - unless justification can increase. If justification is merely either/or, yes or no, and does not increase or decrease, then works can in no situation ever justify a person, because the only ones that are in need of justification are those who are in debt to God and whose works are of no value.

We agree: it is impossible for one to be justified by law-keeping.

But, is it impossible for one ***to think that they can be justified by law-keeping?***Philippians 3:4-10

4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.That is the point which Paul is beginning to destroy in Romans 2, and, by the end of the epistle, he has laid to rest the folly of salvation by works.

 

[sandusky]

Sure no problem.

In John 8:15, Jesus said, “You judge according to the flesh…” What he meant was that the Jews were looking at things from a purely intellectual point of view and using their reason in a vain attempt to understand things of the spirit.

If you’d like, I could explain the tripartite nature of man for you…would this help you?

That makes sense, now.

 

[Milliardo]

(continued from post #389)

It does not, and you’ll see why in a moment.

We agree: it is impossible for one to be justified by law-keeping.

Doing good works isn’t law keeping, not by a long shot. Jesus made that distinction very clear; Paul makes the same thing. This is the trouble with Protestant interpretation–they think doing good is keeping the law. Unfortunately, that’s not the same.

That is the point which Paul is beginning to destroy in Romans 2, and, by the end of the epistle, he has laid to rest the folly of salvation by works.

On the contrary, he didn’t–what did he say in Romans 13:10? “Love is the fulfillment of the law”. Doesn’t sound like destroying to me; more like he’s only reaffirming what he said earlier in Romans 2. Incidentally, in 1 Corinthians 13:2, we find that he says almost exactly the same thing: if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. Now, that’s interesting. Whoever said Paul does not agree with James must have missed that verse. What does James say again about a faith without good works?

 

[Tom]

Read the thread; perhaps you’ll learn something.

Thanks for the advice, but I have read the thread and if you’d read the thread you’ll see I’ve made several posts.

 

[kaycee]

Apop…

Very good point, but like any gift, I can break it, mess it up, destroy it, and deny it. So to with the gift of salvation and the mark that is instilled in ones soul…

I can tarnish it with sin, I can deny it by breaking the commandments. I can throw it back in gods face when i don’t help those that are in need.

Like the egg, it was given to us freely. It changes who we are in a sense because it changes how we walk, run etc… we don’t want to break the egg… We are a new creature because of the egg that was given to us

By Not acting appropriately, we break the egg that was freely given to us.

The Mark is the Mark of Baptism, and having faith in the lord. I think you will agree. That mark is always a part of who we are… It is that mark that allows us to continue to ask for forgiveness when we screw up. Because of that mark, we can hope for the inheritance. We just need to protect the egg, and ask for another one when we drop it. However, if we drop the egg, and don’t ask for another… there is nothing we can do to get that omelet. does that mean we never had an egg to begin with? No… it just means that we refused the omelet we were promised after having already received the egg

This is something Non-Christians do not have. If they are not a Christian, no mark is on them. They were never even given an egg to drop.

As mentioned… we can’t earn salvation, but we can blow it.

In Christ

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

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

Looks like Prot eggs are hard boiled kept in heaven.

 

[Milliardo]

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

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

Looks like Prot eggs are hard boiled kept in heaven.

You often forget that these come with a caveat–that one must be faithful in obeying Him. It boils back down to obedieince–doing something. That is that faith taught by Jesus. It isn’t sola fide by a long stretch.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This issue has comsumed most of this thread. Why do non-catholics insist on spreading rumors and falsehood regarding the Catholic faith? It certainly seems to be the unchristian thing to do, proving their own disbelief of faith. They must be to afraid to want to understand the Truth.

Because if we’re not so completely wrong, then it is harder to hate us, or at least to hate our Church…which leads to some self-doubting…and then to some deep soul-searching… and ultimately to conversion.

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

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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

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

Looks like Prot eggs are hard boiled kept in heaven.

Looks more like they are still in hot water.