"Works" Salvation?

[guanophore]

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

He is talking about Eph 2:7-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I think I figured this out at Mass this morning. Apophasis is confused about salvation by works because he is assuming that Catholics are talking about works of man, instead of the works of God. Of course the works of man are of no avail in salvation. Only these works spoken of in Eph. 2:10 are of any account. Any efforts we make that are not founded upon the unmerited favor given to us by Christ in His death on the cross are useless. Apparently Apophasis is not making the distinction between “sacred” (works of God) and fleshly (originating from humans) in salvation.

 

[apophasis]

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.

Yes, so? “That we should walk in them” is a logical consequence of the believer being no longer in Adam but newly “created in Christ Jesus.” Verse ten is not a conditional threat to a believer’s salvation or his position now in Christ.

It is impossible for RCism to understand verse 10 in relation to verses 8 & 9 of Eph. 2 because it erroneously interprets justification as righteousness being merely “infused” into an Adamic soul. It has no idea of what being “created in Christ Jesus” is.

And if good works aren’t important

I didn’t say they weren’t “important.” They don’t determine one’s salvation or loss of it.

then how come Paul says in Romans 2:6 that we will be judged by our works?

It’s a general statement pertaining to all humanity. And humanity is categorically separated in verses seven and eight by those who “obey the truth” and those who do not. Verse seven ultimately speaks of believers, verse eight of unbelievers. Nevertheless, Paul goes on with his argument to chapter three stating that both the religious confident Jew and the pagan Gentile (Greek) are all “under sin” (Rom. 3:9).Rom. 3:23 “…for ALL SINNED (in Adam) and are continually falling short of the glory of God” The divine solution:Rom. 3:24 “being justified as a GIFT by His grace (how? Through good works? NO!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (3:24).Paul is declaring to the Romans God’s plan of redemption to a condemned humanity through faith in Christ Jesus, not simply that He’s going to judge it. Romans chapter two must be understood in the context of Paul’s total argument culminating in chapters three and four, which is justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.

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.

I have no problem with responsibility with the gift. Every believer must stand before the judgment seat of Christ. But that judgment does not determine one’s salvation, but his reward or lack of it.

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.

“Nonfunctional” can only be rendered as a parent taking away one’s driving privileges, not the car itself. The car still belongs to the child to whom it was gifted. As a loving and responsible parent disciplinary actions must take place for the good and well-being of his child (Heb. 12:7-13), but that doesn’t entail taking away the gift itself - otherwise it never was.

And that’s where RCism utterly fails the true gospel message. To a RC “salvation” is merely God granting “driving privileges.” He never actually gives the gift (that’s to be determined in the future upon meritoriouis works - i.e., his driving record). And when you foul up those privileges are taken away. In other words, RCs are always on probation, and when you foul up bad enough your driving privileges are diminished (loss of salvation).

But that’s a total corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Through faith in Christ God actually does give the GIFT (the car). It legally belongs to the child. Now God certainly has the right to discipline His child if he “drives irresponsibly,” but the car (salvation) remains the possession of the child. It was His gift to him. He didn’t just grant driving privileges of the car. That’s not the gift of salvation.“For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”

Ah…but we Catholics nor the Bible says that we are trying to pay back God for anything, that’s a straw man.

I didn’t say you were. But by your “works” salvation you are demanding from God your wage due:“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due” (Rom. 4:4)But that is not the gospel:“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is reckoned as righteousness (not works)” (Rom. 4:5)

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.

Did you read verse eleven??? Did you read Paul’s logic in verse twelve???

 

[guanophore]

Yes, so? “That we should walk in them” is a logical consequence of the believer being no longer in Adam but newly “created in Christ Jesus.” Verse ten is not a conditional threat to a believer’s salvation or his position now in Christ.

Is that why your are so resistant to the concept of works being included in salvation? Is it because you consider that some sort of “threat” to salvation?

It is impossible for RCism to understand verse 10 in relation to verses 8 & 9 of Eph. 2 because it erroneously interprets justification as righteousness being merely "*infused*" into an Adamic soul.  It has no idea of what being "created in Christ Jesus is.

I had to laugh at this. How did you come up with this conclusion!? Please give an RC source that substantiates this assertion.

"I didn’t say they weren’t “important.” They don’t determine one’s salvation or loss of it.

Perhaps we are making progress! At least we can agree that works are important! I have a question. Can you role play? Can you imagine what it would be like if works really did determine one’s salvation, or loss of it?

 

[guanophore]

The divine solution:Rom. 3:24 “being justified as a GIFT by His grace (how? Through good works? NO!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (3:24). …must be understood in the context of Paul’s total argument culminating in chapters three and four, which is justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.I have no problem with responsibility with the gift. Every believer must stand before the judgment seat of Christ. But that judgment does not determine one’s salvation, but his reward or lack of it.

If this is the case, then I don’t see where the disagreement is. Catholics believe we are saved by grace, through faith in the saving work of Christ done on the cross. We believe that we will attend the “judgement of the righteous” at which time we will be judged on how well we were stewards of the Gift of salvation.

And that's where RCism utterly fails the true gospel message.  To a RC "salvation" is merely God granting "*driving privileges*." He never actually gives the gift (that's to be determined in the future upon meritoriouis works - i.e., his driving record). And when you foul up those privileges are taken away.  In other words, RCs are always on probation, and when you foul up bad enough your driving privileges are diminished (loss of salvation).

Clearly you misunderstand the teaching of the Church. I am sorry.

That’s not the gift of salvation.“For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”

the human refusal to accept the gift of salvation does not nullify the salvation.
30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, Luke 7:30

These were the chosen people, those to whom the Word came, the keepers of the covenant. They were recipients of the Gift of the law. However, they still rejected the purpose of God for themselves. It does not nullify the gift, but the person has the free will to refuse it.

But by your “works” salvation you are demanding from God your wage due:“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due” (Rom. 4:4)But that is not the gospel:“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his FAITH is reckoned as righteousness (not works)” (Rom. 4:5)Did you read verse eleven??? Did you read Paul’s logic in verse twelve???

No, apo, you do not understand about the 'works". You are not distinguishing between the “works of God” (faith) and the works of man. Yes, I read 11 & 12. To me, it clearly states that one who is separated from God cannot please God. Yet we know that a faith that saves is a faith that obeys:

36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. " John 3:36

A saving faith is one that expresses itself in obedience, action, “work”. It is not the “work” that saves, for that is done by grace, through faith. I am not sure how to help you see that “works of God” (those proceeding from saving grace) are not the same as “works of men” by whom no one will be saved. Maybe someone more learned that I can help you.

 

[apophasis]

Is that why your are so resistant to the concept of works being included in salvation?

As I said, I have no problem with works “included in,” as a result of, salvation. As we know,it is revealed that the deeds of all true Christian workers will be examined and rewarded (or loss of) at the “judgment seat of Christ.”

Is it because you consider that some sort of “threat” to salvation?

No. In the Biblilcal context in which I understand works, they’re no threat at all to my salvation. But that is not the case for every RC posting on this thread. Although you (pl.) deny the obvious.

I had to laugh at this. How did you come up with this conclusion!? Please give an RC source that substantiates this assertion.

You’ve never studied the RC doctrine of “infused” righteousness?

Perhaps we are making progress! At least we can agree that works are important!

No progress at all. Since I do not agree that they are at all important, not even necessary FOR one’s salvation. In fact, you who think they are have missed the gospel message, you have circumvented the cross.

Can you imagine what it would be like if works really did determine one’s salvation, or loss of it?

Yes. And I would respond like Paul: “Perish the thought.” And like Jesus to Peter in Matt. 16:23.

If this is the case, then I don’t see where the disagreement is. Catholics believe we are saved by grace, through faith in the saving work of Christ done on the cross.

Alone? If that were true we wouldn’t be debating anything and there would not have been a Reformation. Nor would have this thread been started by a questioning RC.

We believe that we will attend the “judgement of the righteous” at which time we will be judged on how well we were stewards of the Gift of salvation.

And that judgment will determine what? Please be specific.

Clearly you misunderstand the teaching of the Church. I am sorry.

Or it’s quite possible you do.

"For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" To this you responded: …the human refusal to accept the gift of salvation does not nullify the salvation.

I agree. But the propositional message of the gospel is not to accept or reject salvation, but the One through whom it is given.

30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, Luke 7:30 These were the chosen people, those to whom the Word came, the keepers of the covenant.

This was in respect to God’s covenant nation, which He will yet faithfully fulfill His unconditional covenants which He made with it. That’s what Rom. 11 is all about. But the divine principle in verse twenty-nine is true whether to a nation or in this Church age to individuals who are given freely the gift of salvation through faith in Christ alone.

No, apo, you do not understand about the 'works". You are not distinguishing between the “works of God” (faith) and the works of man.

Oh, but I understand perfectly. It is RCism that does not distinguish between faith and works in respect to salvation. It utterly confounds justification and practical (experiential) sanctification.

Yes, I read 11 & 12. To me, it clearly states that one who is separated from God cannot please God. Yet we know that a faith that saves is a faith that obeys:

By your response I don’t think you did, so I’ll post it:1 Cor 6:11 "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified (how?) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.And here is the divine principle for the washed, sanctified and justified believer under grace:1 Cor 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. " John 3:36

The operative word being “believes.” To believe in the Son is to obey God.

A saving faith is one that expresses itself in obedience, action, “work”.

No problem there.

It is not the “work” that saves, for that is done by grace, through faith.

Now believe that Pauline message yourself and and take it to Rome. It was already delivered to the Roman church once by Paul in letter form. But his letter which was long ago written to the church at Rome, in time, has now become his letter against the church at Rome.

 

[Milliardo]

Common sense should help us further in this; I will continue my thoughts regarding verse 10 of Ephesians 2, and tie it up with James, as well as how it fits perfectly with Jesus’ view of a faith hinged on obedience. Now, we see that James said that faith without works is dead. And we see in Ephesians 2:10 that we should live in them. Now, as an analogy, what do we need to live? Is it not food, water and air? These are necessities; without them, we would die. What is said then in Ephesians 2:10–the good works were made for us to do so we may live in them. And what is James saying–that our faith is dead without them. So, we can see clearly here that good works are a necessity, as they are our food, water and air for our faith. They are made for our faith to be alive. So we see here why Jesus asks us to be obedient, and not merely enough to know Him. After all, His command is clear: come, follow Me. It is a command of not just knowing Him, but actually obeying Him. Follow Me–do what I ask you to do, is what He is saying.

The operative word being “believes.” To believe in the Son is to obey God.

Ah, so you agree then; that is good. So what is the problem we have here then about good works being a necessity if to believe in Christ is to obey then?

 

[guanophore]

I understand works, they’re no threat at all to my salvation. But that is not the case for every RC posting on this thread. Although you (pl.) deny the obvious.

I just came here after reading some postings by a couple Catholics that are very uneducated about their faith, and have not been able to appreciate forgivenss for their sins. So, maybe those are the ones you are talking about? However, my beef is that you have conflated “RC posting” with the TEACHING of the Catholic Church! I will be the first to agree with you that CAtholics can be very uneducated about their faith, and don’t understand salvation by grace. That is quite diffferent from what the CHURCH teaches, and that is what you are constantly criticising/

You’ve never studied the RC doctrine of “infused” righteousness?

Yes, and I am challening you to show me that it does not mean the same as imputed righteousness, though different language is used.
apophasis;2011560:

No progress at all.  Since I do not agree that they are at all important, not even necessary FOR one's salvation.  In fact, you who think they are have missed the gospel message, you have circumvented the cross.Yes.  And I would respond like Paul: "*Perish the thought*

."

You will forgive me if I think we have made progress? I don’t see where the disagreement is. Catholics believe we are saved by grace, through faith in the saving work of Christ done on the cross.

If that were true we wouldn’t be debating anything and there would not have been a Reformation.

I confess that I am confused why you are debating this point, because it is clear to me that salvation by grace through faith is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The reformation occurred for a variety of reasons, one of the main ones being abuses and greed on the part of the clergy. It is not right to impute this sin agains the teachings of Christ. It is regrettable that those who called themselves by His name were corrupt, but that does not make Jeuss and His teaching corrupt.

Nor would have this thread been started by a questioning RC.

I thought we were in agreement that there were CAtholics that don’t understand the teachings of the Church? That still does not nullify the content of the teaching (although it may implicate the catechists)

 

[guanophore]

…final judgement…

And that judgment will determine what? Please be specific

A rendering to every man according to his works

" 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good…, Rom 2:5-11

Or it’s quite possible you do.(not understand the teaching of the Catholic Church).

Are you saying (again and erroenously) that it is the teaching of the Catholic church that I can earn my way into heaven by works of the flesh?

Church age to individuals who are given freely the gift of salvation through faith in Christ alone.Oh, but I understand perfectly. It is RCism that does not distinguish between faith and works in respect to salvation. It utterly confounds justification and practical (experiential) sanctification.

I regret this is confounding for you. I think I am at a loss to help you. The Church teaches us that works of the flesh avail us nothing, and our understanding of salvation is faith that most properly expresses itself in obedience to the father. For us, it is not a “confounding” but a continuance. This is why I said you don’t seem to discern the difference between “works of God” and works of the flesh.

I'll post it:**1 Cor 6:11** "Such were some of you; but you were **washed**, but you were **sanctified**, but you were **justified** (*how?*) in the name of the Lord  Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God

Baptism

.And here is the divine principle for the washed, sanctified and justified believer under grace:1 Cor 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.The operative word being “believes.” To believe in the Son is to obey God.No problem there.Now believe that Pauline message yourself and and take it to Rome. It was already delivered to the Roman church once by Paul in letter form. But his letter which was long ago written to the church at Rome, in time, has now become his letter against the church at Rome.

You will have to show me where, because I cannot find it in any of the Church’s documents.It seems to me that there is no arguement. You state clearly here To believe in the Son is to obey God This is consistent with what the Church teaches, that people often speak of as “works” Faith that is efficacious involved obedience. Sanctification built upon the foundation of justification, inseparable.

 

[Bishopite]

The operative word being “believes.” To believe in the Son is to obey God.No problem there.Now believe that Pauline message yourself and and take it to Rome. It was already delivered to the Roman church once by Paul in letter form. But his letter which was long ago written to the church at Rome, in time, has now become his letter against the church at Rome.

Ah…again you argued earlier for NOT having to do works at all. And the word “believe” is a verb?? Of course it is a verb, an action word, hence without works of love Mt 25:34-46 NO one will enter heaven.

So you do affirm the Catholic Church being the first Church after the Apostles. And again as you are so confused about the word works (that there are only one type of them) so you are very confused about the government of Rome and the Church Jesus established at Rome. Two different entities, one a holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, the other pagan Rome.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

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.

The definition of Greek words is based upon context. However, it is important to remember that words have meanings for a reason, and their basic definitions must be adhered to, or you wind up with absurdities such as, “it depends upon what the meaning of the word is, is.

Show (Gk deiknūō) appears some 33 times in the NT, and is explicitly visual in its meaning; it clearly is a visual verb, and is found in the following passages, for anyone who wants to look at them: Mt 4:8; 8:4; 16:21; Mk 1:44; 14:15; Lk 4:5; 5:14; 20:24; 22:12; 24:40; Jn 2:18; 5:20 (2x); 10:32; 14:8, 9; 20:20; Acts 7:3; 10:28; 1 Cor 12:31; 1 Tim 6:15; Heb 8:5; Jas 2:18 (2x); 3:13; Rev 1:1; 4:1; 17:1; 21:9, 10; 22:1, 6, 8).

The same is true of the verbs that you listed, blepō, and horaō. I am fully satisfied with their use as visual conception; even if swapped with “understand,” the visual concept of mental imagery is present.

Your “ambiguous” argument is specious.

Lazerlike42:

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.

Is that from the KJV, or ESV? Not to quibble, however, I will point out, the word seeing is not in the Septuagint.

Nevertheless, as I said, and you have agreed, God did not need the demonstration for Himself, but it is an amazing event to me, and it must have been truly enlightening to Abraham, of whom it is said he was convinced that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Heb 11:19).

Lazerlike42:

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.

Rahab certainly knew that she, and her family, had been spared from the fate of the rest of the citizens of Jericho by the God of Israel.

Besides, as I have been saying, everyone who reads the testimony, sees, and knows, that Rahab was justified in God’s sight.

Lazerlike42:

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

Thank you.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from #562)

Lazerlike42:

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.

You’re getting there.

Lazerlike42:

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.

That’s right.

Lazerlike42:

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.

You are missing my point, because you are not looking beyond verse 7 in Romans 2. Here is what I originally said:

So his [Paul’s] purpose here is not to show how people can be saved, but to set forth the standards of God’s evaluation apart from the gospel. These standards are the same for everyone—whether they be Jews or Gentiles; there’s no partiality.

Now, move away from v7, and compare my statement above to vv8, 9, 10, and 11: Romans 2:8-11

8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.Do you understand now?

Lazerlike42:

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.

That is a false assumption; it is incorrect to assert that just because an epistle is addressed to a believing group, or a believing church, specifically, that each member in the group, or the church is a saved believer, actually; there are tares among the wheat (Mt 13:24-30).

Lazerlike42:

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.

The use of the word being is to convey the sense of the present, active verb sōdzō; it is a completed action, with continuous result. There is only one group of people who believe in vain—the non-elect.

Lazerlike42:

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.

What is Pelagian about, Abraham believed in the Lord; And He reckoned it to him as righteousness?

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from #563)

Lazerlike42:

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

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.

From A.T. Robertson*Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament *
It was reckoned unto him for righteousness (elogisqh ei� dikaiosunhn). First aorist passive indicative of logizomai, old and common verb to set down accounts (literally or metaphorically). It was set down on the credit side of the ledger “for” (ei� as often) righteousness. What was set down? His believing God (episteusen twi qewi).
(This can be verified online at the this linkRobertson is incomparable.

Lazerlike42:

The problem here is that the ‘show me’ passages cannot be used as evidence, since they are ambiguous phrases…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.

Speaking contra Akin, I’ll again appeal to the incomparable A.T. Robertson, who says the “show me” verbs are speaking not of works as means of salvation, but works as means of faith.

Why argue that the words, show, and see, don’t really mean show and see? That is the same argument used against brothers and sisters in reference to Jesus’ siblings—brothers and sisters don’t really mean brothers and sisters. That is the same argument used against passages in scripture that state that you can know that you have eternal life—know doesn’t really mean know. Ridiculous!

Lazerlike42:

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.

It’s poorly constructed, and the conclusion is wrong.

Your major and minor premises are stating requirements, so your conclusion should deal with requirements as well, such as, in this case 1) Justification as the sole requirement is false. Or 2) Both justification, and sanctification are requirements.

Wheat is required to make bread.

Water is required to make bread.

Conclusion: Both wheat and water are required to make bread.

Wrong conclusion: Wheat and water are the same thing.

 

[Odell]

As I said, I have no problem with works “included in,” as a result of, salvation. As we know,it is revealed that the deeds of all true Christian workers will be examined and rewarded (or loss of) at the "judgment seat of Christ.

I always like this thought of a true christian. What is a true Christian? What is a false Christian will a false Christian enter heaven?

"No. In the Biblilcal context in which I understand works, they’re no threat at all to my salvation.

" 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good…, Rom 2:5-11

In fact, you who think they are have missed the gospel message, you have circumvented the cross.

The gospel messeage is to do the will of God that Jesus taought us.

…final judgement…

A rendering to every man according to his works

" 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good…, Rom 2:5-11

you mean we will be given eternal life? if we seek for glory and honor and immortality.

but if I was not to obey the truth there would be wrath and fury?

acording to apophasis I can believe in God but I do not have to obey him.

Im going to have to look for that passage Ill let you know if I find it.

 

[Freebird]

If works are irrelevant to salvation, what is the purpose of forgiveness?

 

[Milliardo]

Actually, in Matt. 25 He separates the “sheep” from the “goats.” Being “sheep” they were already saved (obviously through faith).

No, they were not. Jesus makes it clear that the distinction them of being sheep and goat is not because of faith, but because of what they did. You’re putting in something that’s nowhere in the passage. It’s not in the context. Read the parables before it to give you a clue; the parable of the ten bridesmaiden (which I talked about earlier in this thread0 is especially telling. Additionally, it becomes even more funny when some say that this Judgment is for believers only (yes, believe it or not, there are those who say that)–it only then reinforces even more that God’s basis for Judgment is works.

So the point is there–what is God’s basis for Judgment? Works. That cannot be judged. Even if, for the sake of argument, we are to read it the way you do, it still does not detract from the fact that God will judge us based on what we have–or have not–done. It’s inescapable. You can make your own notions about it, interpret it the way you do, but you still end up with one thing–God’s basis for Judgment is our works, not just faith alone.

In retrospect then, we can surmise even more that believers who accepted Him but have not obeyed Him will be the goats as well: notice what they ask–“Where have we seen you hungry, or in need, or in prison, etc.” It is a question believers and unbelievers will ask on Judgment Day. So clearly we can see here that the sheep and the goats are not believers and unbelievers per se, but are those who obey Him (those who hear His voice, as you pointed out) and those who refuse to obey, or are disobedient, to Him. Isn’t it that these are true for believers and unbelievers alike? So, what is the operative word here? One word: love, or charity as some translations put it. Remember Paul’s words: Love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10).

 

[dcdurel]

Wheat is required to make bread.

Water is required to make bread.

Conclusion: Both wheat and water are required to make bread.

Wrong conclusion: Wheat and water are the same thing.

We agree that the bible is clear.

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.
   Since Justification removes all our sins and the penalty of them, but sanctification that must be strived for is required to see God, then jusfication must include sanctification.

This is exactly what the Church has always taught,

"“Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”

Thus, both are required. If only one is present, then it is not justification.
Just as if either water or the wheat is missing, their is no bread.

Therefore sanctification is part of justification.

 

[Robert902]

This is all some man’s theology based upon cherry picked passages from the Bible. Notice that you never see any of these preachers speak on Matthew 25:31-46, where Our Lord very plainly tells the people that they will be judged based upon what they have and have not done during their lives and not merely on some profession of faith that was made at some point in their life. In fact… Christ repudiates that Christianity Lite that asserts that our works are without merit in this same passage saying that He may well say to them that He never knew them.

The only inconsistency is in the teachings of the myriad n-C churches that offer a soft and easy Christianity that removes the responsibility for obedience unto good works from their gospels. I call that a different gospel if ever there was one.

The Catholic Church has not, never has, and will not ever teach a salvation by works, and those who even hint that we do are enjoying beating up a strawman that has no substance in fact.

 

[Bishopite]

[apophasis;2011301]Yes, so? “That we should walk in them” is a logical consequence of the believer being no longer in Adam but newly “created in Christ Jesus.” Verse ten is not a conditional threat to a believer’s salvation or his position now in Christ.

No, you missed the whole point. Verse 10 says we were created for good works. You deny works of any kind, that’s the problem.
Read James 2"21-22 “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works”

Paul is declaring to the Romans God’s plan of redemption to a condemned humanity through faith in Christ Jesus, not simply that He’s going to judge it. Romans chapter two must be understood in the context of Paul’s total argument culminating in chapters three and four, which is justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.

So how do “YOU” know the context?

I have no problem with responsibility with the gift. Every believer must stand before the judgment seat of Christ. But that judgment does not determine one’s salvation, but his reward or lack of it."

So you do accept that ones salvation requires responsibilities. Read Mt 25:34-46

Nonfunctional" can only be rendered as a parent taking away one’s driving privileges, not the car itself. The car still belongs to the child to whom it was gifted. As a loving and responsible parent disciplinary actions must take place for the good and well-being of his child (Heb. 12:7-13), but that doesn’t entail taking away the gift itself - otherwise it never was

No your logic again fails. Nonfunctional means the gift which is THE CAR fails to function at all. The car is analogous to the gift of salvation to us. The car does belong to the child, yet it is a pile of junk, just as a person who fails to obey the moral law of Christ who once knew Him has volitionally taken themselves away from Him and by grave and sinful actions which God opposes. 1 Cor 6 explains them.

But that’s a total corruption of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Through faith in Christ God actually does give the GIFT (the car). It legally belongs to the child. Now God certainly has the right to discipline His child if he “drives irresponsibly,” but the car (salvation) remains the possession of the child. It was His gift to him. He didn’t just grant driving privileges of the car. That’s not the gift of salvation. "

No, forensic declaritive justification only isn’t the Scriptural model. God is primarily a Father, we obtain sonship by adoption through Christ. We are just legally justified that’s a Luther, Calvin fallacy. God grants the gift with obligations for us otherwise we could be “saved” and still murder, commit adultery, fornicate right? A gift so great as salvation requires responsibility.

And God’s gifts are irrevocable because God won’t ever let anyone else take our salvation except US by our choosing to disobey Him. However, God’s gifts are also conditional, the condition is that WE do the corporal works of charity. Read Mt 25:34-46NO. We beg Christ for salvation, why don’t you read Mt 25:34-46 and you will see who obeys Gods moral law by faith (Romans 1:5,16:26) and who doesn’t. Those who don’t go to hell.

But that is not the gospel:

You apparently only read Romans where Paul is saying the works of law (or works of Torah) DON’T bring salvation, for those are works that demand God to save and obligate Him to save, this is what the Pharisees did and you falsely accuse the Catholic Church of teaching this. But if you read James 2 and Mt 25 you will see the greater picture of what God requires for salvation.

RCC said of pelagianism 529 AD…
CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, **which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God? **
CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

Does that sound like obligating God? Don’t think so.

Did you read verse eleven??? Did you read Paul’s logic in verse twelve???

Verse 12 of Romans 4?

 

[Robert902]

What did Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed to do to be saved? Would Jesus tell us something different? What does the Catholic Church say is needed for salvation?

God Bless,
Robert

---

God commands us to “test all things.”​

 

[Bishopite]

What did Jesus tell Nicodemus he needed to do to be saved? Would Jesus tell us something different? What does the Catholic Church say is needed for salvation?

God Bless,
Robert

---

God commands us to “test all things.”​

Acts 2:38, Mark 16:15