"Works" Salvation?

[Truthstalker]

2 Cor. 3:6-11 “The letter and the spirit.”

Since Apostolic times, ritual, ceremonial and sacramental Christianity has posed a serious threat to the authentic Biblical Gospel. This type of church becomes a surrogate Christ, displacing the real Christ.
People connect only to the institution (their church) through the mechanical works rather than to the living Christ.
External ceremonies take the place of internal worship. The sacrament or ritual becomes the means of grace instead of the symbols of grace.
Ministers become exalted intermediaries between the people and God.
Performing rituals for salvation, instead of humble servants who bring grace to save, sanctify and equip the saints for the work of the ministry. Eph. 4:12.
Read Col. 2:6-17 and 2 Cor. 11:23-27 (GRACE)

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph 5:20 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dead dry religion can be found anywhere, under any belief system. You seem to think it is unique to Catholicism. People make mistakes; we all have to guard against going through the motions.

You seem to think there are no means of grace, that whatever ministers do is “going through the motions”, yet you also state that they “bring grace.” So on the one hand you fault them for doing something (ritual) and then fault them for not doing something (bringing grace).

God uses His church. Do you deny that? Seemingly not, but it is not clear. How then do you think ministers should bring grace and equip the saints? Are you in a better position to tell the church how to do it than those who have been running the Catholic Church, and if so, how did you get there?

God gave us means of grace. Of that the Catholic Church is very aware, and very Biblically based - more so than many other churches. Does your church have three readings from the Bible every service, pray the Lord’s prayer, intercede for other people, and have Communion every week? All these things are Biblical.
But we all are guilty of going through the motions from time to time. Sometimes, though, it is better to go through the motions than to not do anything.

 

[dessert]

2 Cor. 3:6-11 “The letter and the spirit.”

Since Apostolic times, ritual, ceremonial and sacramental Christianity has posed a serious threat to the authentic Biblical Gospel. This type of church becomes a surrogate Christ, displacing the real Christ.
People connect only to the institution (their church) through the mechanical works rather than to the living Christ.
External ceremonies take the place of internal worship. The sacrament or ritual becomes the means of grace instead of the symbols of grace.
Ministers become exalted intermediaries between the people and God.
Performing rituals for salvation, instead of humble servants who bring grace to save, sanctify and equip the saints for the work of the ministry. Eph. 4:12.
Read Col. 2:6-17 and 2 Cor. 11:23-27 (GRACE)

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph 5:20 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So are you saying you don’t think we should have ministers at all doing anything?
Then what do you call the WORK of the ministry?

Then do you think they should be marrying anyone?

Marriage is a Sacrament (ritual) that joins two people together for the purpose of joint in worship and love and evenually becoming one in the union of another creature.

You discridit the ministry of Jesus or it sounds like you are refuting it? Dessert

 

[mepatri]

Once I learned what the Catholic Church really taught (as opposed what I was told it taught by the likes of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, and Ellen White) I saw that its teaching of faith AND works, was true to what Scripture taught, as opposed to Protestantism.

It’s easy to see why you turned away from the truth. You chose teachers that we not good teachers. It would be like me saying - " I turned from the Catholic faith becase of what I learned from the news reports on the abusive priests. It’s not a good example of what the faith is all about.

You would be well advised to look to R.C. Sproul ligonier.org/, or Ravi Zacharias rzim.org/, for accurate teaching on what the Bible actually says.

 

[RNRobert]

It’s easy to see why you turned away from the truth. You chose teachers that we not good teachers. It would be like me saying - " I turned from the Catholic faith becase of what I learned from the news reports on the abusive priests. It’s not a good example of what the faith is all about.

You would be well advised to look to R.C. Sproul ligonier.org/, or Ravi Zacharias rzim.org/, for accurate teaching on what the Bible actually says.

But I did not turn away from the truth- Sola Fide as a Christian doctrine was unknown prior to Luther’s revolt in 1517- the Orthodox do not teach it either. And my point about White, Chick, et al was that they LIED about the Catholic Church- they had nothing to do with my rejection of Sola Fide- I figured that out just by reading the Bible.

James 2:26. For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[OneForTruth]

I believe that Romans Chapter 4 says that we are saved/justified on the basis of faith alone just in the way the text reads…

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

The insinuation throughout this passage is that we are justified by faith APART from anything else when it comes to the basis of our justification.

We are taught in the scriptures what this faith entails…it is a faith that works…

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

James tells us that it must be a living faith…one that manifests itself in works.

James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

What example does he use but that type of example of love - a person is destitute and they come to you in great need and you completely ignore it and send them on their way - this is obviously not a faith that works by love.

We must be reminded by the CCC and the scriptures that the faith that is in the heart of the believer is not of our own selves but that which is a gift from God. Coming to faith is by grace…

Acts 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:

It is all a work of God in the heart of the believer

Those that fall away from the faith or that are fruitless - they are tares in light of a few parables spoken by Christ - trees that were not planted by God but by the devil himself and their faith may as well be characterized as the faith of demons - it is vain/empty.

1Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

God Bless

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Linkowski:

we certainly see mixed messages…

The Magisterium is not a mixed message. I am wondering if you are seeing something that is not there.

Linkowski:

and I as well as the other Catholic folk that I talk to witness to the overall teaching that seems to indicate a works-based salvation.

Am I correct in saying that you have made a conscious decision to cite as your authority ‘other Catholic folk’ rather than Magisterial teaching?

Linkowski:

That is all I have…I do not want to drag this out.

Dragging it out looks like what? Could you explain please?

 

[guanophore]

2 Cor. 3:6-11 “The letter and the spirit.”

Since Apostolic times, ritual, ceremonial and sacramental Christianity has posed a serious threat to the authentic Biblical Gospel.

This is a baseless, as well as erroneous assertion. Especially in the light of the fact that there WAS NO bible when the rituals, ceremonies, and sacraments were instituted.

This type of church becomes a surrogate Christ, displacing the real Christ.

Only for the faithless, or perhaps those outside, looking in, who cannot expreience Christ in the sacraments. It is true that there are Catholics who only practice a form of godliness, lacking the power thereof. They participate in the sacraments but don’t recognize Christ. However, this in no way invalidates the sacrament. People came to listen to Christ, some mocked, some scoffed, and some believed. The mockers and scoffers did not invalidate His Word.

People connect only to the institution (their church) through the mechanical works rather than to the living Christ.

There are some people like that, I admit. However, most connect to the living Christ through the sacraments, through the chruch, as Christ intended.

External ceremonies take the place of internal worship. The sacrament or ritual becomes the means of grace instead of the symbols of grace.

You are right that sacraments are the means of grace, but they don’t take the place of internal worship. Ceremonies are a way of expressing internal worship in an external manner. Some Christians worship by clapping, waving their arms, and dancing. It does not mean they don’t have internal worship at the same time they are moving.

Ministers become exalted intermediaries between the people and God.

One must be cautious about exalting the servant of God. However, trusted servants are worthy of honor. This is entirely biblical (for the Sola Scripturists). It is also entirely biblical that we participate with Christ as ministers of grace, that He shares with us the role of the mediator.

Performing rituals for salvation, instead of humble servants who bring grace to save, sanctify and equip the saints for the work of the ministry. Eph. 4:12.
Read Col. 2:6-17 and 2 Cor. 11:23-27 (GRACE)

God Bless,
Robert

Perpetuating the sacraments for the salvation of the faithful is best done by humble servants who understand that we are saved by grace, and that these sacraments bring sanctification, and better equip saints for the work of the ministry. You are seeing a dichotomy where one does not exist.

I will agree with you, however, the the Church needs to do a better job of equipping the saints for the work of the ministry. There are a lot of pew sitters in Catholic churches, who seem to sit back and expect the pastor and deacon to do all the work.

 

[RNRobert]

I believe that Romans Chapter 4 says that we are saved/justified on the basis of faith alone just in the way the text reads…

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

The insinuation throughout this passage is that we are justified by faith APART from anything else when it comes to the basis of our justification.

We are taught in the scriptures what this faith entails…it is a faith that works…

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

I believe you are taking these verses out of context. In both Romans and Galatians, he is talking to those who had been Jews, and is telling them that we are saved apart from works of the law (that is the Jewish law, involving circumcision, etc.). Nowhere is he talking about works of charity.

Also, read this passage from Matthew 25:

25:31. And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.
25:32. And all nations shall be gathered together before him: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:
25:33. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
25:34. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
25:35. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
25:36. Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
25:37. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
25:38. Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
25:39. Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
25:40. And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
25:41. Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
25:42. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.
25:43. I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.
25:44. Then they also shall answer him, saying: 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?
25:45. Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
25:46. And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Nowhere does it discuss being saved by “believing in Jesus.” The sheep enter into the blessings of heaven by their actions, and the goats damned to hell by their inactions.

In another thread, I used the analogy of the Dead Sea. It is fed by the fresh water of the Jordan River, but it is salty and cannot sustain life. Why? because there is no outlet. So to in the Christian life. God gives us his graces, but inless we allow them to flow through us, we too, are dead.

 

[dessert]

I believe you are taking these verses out of context. In both Romans and Galatians, he is talking to those who had been Jews, and is telling them that we are saved apart from works of the law (that is the Jewish law, involving circumcision, etc.). Nowhere is he talking about works of charity.

Also, read this passage from Matthew 25:

Nowhere does it discuss being saved by “believing in Jesus.” The sheep enter into the blessings of heaven by their actions, and the goats damned to hell by their inactions.

In another thread, I used the analogy of the Dead Sea. It is fed by the fresh water of the Jordan River, but it is salty and cannot sustain life. Why? because there is no outlet. So to in the Christian life. God gives us his graces, but inless we allow them to flow through us, we too, are dead.

I like that analogy can I use it? Dessert

 

[Ani_Ibi]

NotWorthy:

Although it’s very difficult and often inaccurate, to lump all Protestant theology into a nice neat package…

Indeed, even Protestants have not done this. Why then should Catholics take it on? Is this another strawman?

NotWorthy:

I think you’ll find that they do Good Works out of a love for the Lord, or a desire to please Him.

R.D. Laing has said that some of the greatest crimes in humanity have been done in the name of love. The point is that doing a work out of love for the Lord or a desire to please him is still a work. The question is whether that work is in obedience to God’s will or not.

In the Catholic Church, callings must be discerned. The works we do is always subject to the scrutiny of the bishops and the bishops are always subject to the scrutiny of the community of bishops in obedience to One Magisterium and that One Magisterium never changes and is always in full possession of the Truth.

We may quite easily be tempted to do a work ‘out of love of God’ but may at the same time be quite stubbornly impervious to what God actually wants us to do. God cannot use us as instruments of His peace if we are still operating out of a self-sufficient mentality: when it is still us working for God, instead of God working through us.

Working ‘out of love for God’ may well be a good intention. But the road to where exactly is paved with good intentions?

:doh2:

Why do you think the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Is it the good part? Or the intention part? We were not made to be alone. Yet much of Protestant apologetics seems derived from a platform of self-sufficiency and rebellion.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

That’s a clever twist. But no matter how many spins you put on it, you’re right back to the same old false gospel of salvation based on works.

I see that you yourself present no further evidence or line of reasoning but instead choose to put a ‘spin’ on something quite convincing offered by another poster. So the tautology stage of the discussion commences. Usually when this happens, the poster has conceded the point, but doesn’t actually stop posting for another ten or so pages or threads.

 

[apophasis]

Not sure, although obviously the thief on the cross was a good example of “baptism by desire.”

What baptism do you think the thief could have possibly “desired,” since it wasn’t until after Christ’s own death and bodily resurrection did He give the command to His Apostles to now baptize believers "in the the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?" How could he have “desired” a baptism that did not yet exist?

This doctrine of “baptism of desire” is formed by men out of necessity because of their belief in salvation through baptism. It is doctrine based on rationalism, not divine revelation.

 

[RNRobert]

I like that analogy can I use it? Dessert

By all means!:tiphat:

Actually I heard that analogy elsewhere (on an Evangelical radio station, of all places).

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Not sure, although obviously the thief on the cross was a good example of “baptism by desire.”

I also came across this link:

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#X

Hi,
The article confused me a bit. It said that the three types of baptism are

1. by water
2. by desire
3. by blood

Then the article said the first one is the only one that matters UNLESS a person cannot(for whatever reason)get baptized by water.

I thought baptism by blood was referring to the blood Jesus shed on the cross for us and baptism by blood was when a person believed in Christ and what He did for us on the cross.

So what I took from the article was that you dont even have to have belief as long as you are baptized by water, That is just silly
I just went back to reread it and is it saying that the water baptism GIVES or INFUSES the belief of Christ in you? Im sorry Im just having a difficult time with this concept and trying to clearly understand it.

 

[RNRobert]

Hi,
The article confused me a bit. It said that the three types of baptism are

1. by water
2. by desire
3. by blood

Then the article said the first one is the only one that matters UNLESS a person cannot(for whatever reason)get baptized by water.

I thought baptism by blood was referring to the blood Jesus shed on the cross for us and baptism by blood was when a person believed in Christ and what He did for us on the cross.

So what I took from the article was that you dont even have to have belief as long as you are baptized by water, That is just silly
I just went back to reread it and is it saying that the water baptism GIVES or INFUSES the belief of Christ in you? Im sorry Im just having a difficult time with this concept and trying to clearly understand it.

No, baptism of blood refers to those who are martyred for their faith before they can be baptized.
Baptism is the normative means of infusing Christ’s grace in us. Of course, God is not strictly bound by the sacraments and he will not refuse anyone who sincerely seeks him.

 

[Truthstalker]

That’s a clever twist. But no matter how many spins you put on it, you’re right back to the same old false gospel of salvation based on works.

Translation: Catholics can explain things all they want, but you are not going to listen.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

No, baptism of blood refers to those who are martyred for their faith before they can be baptized.
Baptism is the normative means of infusing Christ’s grace in us. Of course, God is not strictly bound by the sacraments and he will not refuse anyone who sincerely seeks him.

OH, I didnt realize that is what you meant by blood baptism. Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[RNRobert]

OH, I didnt realize that is what you meant by blood baptism. Thanks:thumbsup:

You’re welcome! :tiphat:

 

[Truthstalker]

I think baptism of desire is when you intend to get baptized Sunday but get killed in a car accident Friday. You desired it, you intended it, but through no fault of your own, it didn’t happen.

This concept convinced me that Catholics don’t believe the sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation. They are normative, but God works according to His mercy and justice. It is calumny to accuse Catholics of absolutely insisting on the necessity of the sacraments for salvation. Willing refusal of the sacraments, however, is another matter. I think any Christian will agree that someone who, understanding baptism, refuses it, is rejecting Christianity. This actually relates to the thread, because then the work undone (not being baptized) is a statement of no faith. One cannot say that someone refusing baptism has faith. So here the “work” of accepting baptism is necessary for salvation.

It’s not intellectual faith alone.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Linkowski:

I will make an analogy…

But the analogy you give is a false analogy.

The Catholic faith as I was taught:
You must pass this test and you will be smart…SO…put A for this answer, and D for that answer…C for that answer, True for that answer, False for that answer - and so on and so on.Voila!! You are smart!!

? ? ? Is this Magisterial teaching? um… I don’t think so. :dts:

In fact it is unrecognizable to me. A caricature if ever there was one. So remote is your story from what the Church actually teaches that it would not surprise me to see Bugs Bunny peeking out from between your posts scratching his head and mumbling What’s up wi’dat Doc!

What is up with that Doc? If what you say is true and you really left because of what you claim you were ‘taught’ in the Catholic Church then surely it is obvious that you left in vain. What a pity! Because what you claim you were ‘taught’ is not what the Church teaches.

Be fair now, Linkowsky. Admit it. What you claim the Church teaches and what the Church actually teaches are two different things. Right? Moreover, if you truly can’t see it this way, then, in all fairness Linkowski – to us if not also to yourself – even you must admit that the time is ripe for you to find out what the Church actually teaches. Is that not fair, Linkowski?

Why else would you place yourself smack dab in the middle of a Catholic forum? (That is not a rhetorical question.) Please feel free to answer. Why place yourself smack dab in the middle of a Catholic forum if not to give yourself a chance to be corrected on Catholic teaching?

In case you have forgotten, please let me remind you that one of the seven works of charity is correction. Oh! I forgot OSAS proponents are adverse to works. I suppose that means that correction is out of the question then?

:doh2:

Does that apply to us as well? Or because we believe in faith and works that we can be corrected? We can be corrected but people subscribing to OSAS cannot be corrected. Is that how it ‘works’?



Do you feel no faint tugging of the conscience that you have judged the Church too hastily or allowed yourself to be misled by a-C forces too easily?

Please, before you make another pronouncement, please at least have the grace to ascertain that your representation of the Catholic Church is accurate first. Is that not fair? Is it not reasonable? :yup: