Does Roman Catholicism teach a work-salvation?

smurfhousing

This imaginary dialogue b/t a RC and a P is interesting: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

And this tract sums up the Catholic position thus:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909chap.asp

Thus if one uses the language of the Bible, one would say that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law . . . not by faith alone . . . for faith apart from works is dead . . . but faith working through love" (Rom. 3:28, Jas. 2:24, 26, Gal. 5:6).

strobe

Interesting thread.......I was just wondering how the people arguing against a works based salvation reconcile that with the stuff Jesus says in the sermon on the mount:

"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."....etc

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Interesting thread.......I was just wondering how the people arguing against a works based salvation reconcile that with the stuff Jesus says in the sermon on the mount:

"Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

The basic idea is that all men are lost and are incapable of generating rightstanding with God through their good works. On being born again, the Holy Spirit now residing in the person encourages and exhorts the person to good works that are pleasing to God. The only ones who can "do the will of My Father who is in heaven.." is thus the born again person.

Jesus here is identifying works as a marker/identifier of those saved by faith - rather than saying works are a cause of being saved. The passage can be read both ways so you need to go elsewhere to find out that salvation is wrought by faith.

"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."....etc

The Pharisees were seen as the purest, holiest men of all - in a religious system that measured purity and holiness by a persons adhering to the Law of God (and whatever extras had been added in by way of sacred tradition). In setting the bar higher than even them, Jesus was effectively excluding the possibility of a person ever working their way to heaven under own steam.

He was only using them as a model to illustrate something. He didn't consider them holy at all - reckoning that all their goodness was surface. A facade. "Whitewashed" tombs he called them. Full of dead mens bones within. Which is the way we are in fact: we do our good deeds, but inside our thoughts are dark.

With only one cleaning agent available that'll remove the stain. His name is Jesus

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

The basic idea is that all men are lost and are incapable of generating rightstanding with God through their good works. On being born again, the Holy Spirit now residing in the person encourages and exhorts the person to good works that are pleasing to God. The only ones who can "do the will of My Father who is in heaven.." is thus the born again person.

Jesus here is identifying works as a marker/identifier of those saved by faith - rather than saying works are a cause of being saved. The passage can be read both ways so you need to go elsewhere to find out that salvation is wrought by faith.

Yeah, see to me it reads pretty clearly as "it is not enough to be a Jew/Christian you have to prove your worth by your deeds"

The Pharisees were seen as the purest, holiest men of all - in a religious system that measured purity and holiness by a persons adhering to the Law of God (and whatever extras had been added in by way of sacred tradition). In setting the bar higher than even them, Jesus was effectively excluding the possibility of a person ever working their way to heaven under own steam.

He was only using them as a model to illustrate something. He didn't consider them holy at all - reckoning that all their goodness was surface. A facade. "Whitewashed" tombs he called them. Full of dead mens bones within. Which is the way we are in fact: we do our good deeds, but inside our thoughts are dark.

With only one cleaning agent available that'll remove the stain. His name is Jesus

I picked up on the swipe at the Pharisees alright...... Again I'd read it as saying "it is not enough to just to be one of the holy people { Pharisees or I guess this could be transposed to modern times as saying it is not enough to be "born again"}, a lot of the time they are hypocrites( he mentions hypocrisy a lot), they say they believe one thing but act in another way. People should be judged by their actions".


But thanks for the reply in anyway Skep, I guess, like always, this stuff just comes back to personal interpretaion again.........I'm surprised you guys ever agree on anything to be honest.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Yeah, see to me it reads pretty clearly as "it is not enough to be a Jew/Christian you have to prove your worth by your deeds"

I agree!

Ones faith, must bear fruit. I.E - Works follow on from a genuine faith in Christ.

The difference is how we are dealing with faith and works, are they mutually exclusive, or does one follow one from the other?

Some are suggesting that faith is one thing, works are another. I and others are arguing that genuine Christian faith and works are intrinsically linked, and as James writes, faith without works is really dead.

Other Scriptures agree with the view, that ones faith must not be manifested only in words, but if it is genuine it will manifest itself in works, and in your love for God, and the greater church.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree!

:eek: Ok now I'm worried.

Ones faith, must bear fruit. I.E - Works follow on from a genuine faith in Christ.

The difference is how we are dealing with faith and works, are they mutually exclusive, or does one follow one from the other?

See this is where I struggle a bit. How could the argument be made that the works follow on from the faith, when people of a different faith (or none) can produce identical works...?

Some are suggesting that faith is one thing, works are another. I and others are arguing that genuine Christian faith and works are intrinsically linked, and as James writes, faith without works is really dead.

Do you think it goes both ways? "Faith without works is really dead and works without faith are meaningless"?

Other Scriptures agree with the view, that ones faith must not be manifested only in words, but if it is genuine it will manifest itself in works, and in your love for God, and the greater church.

But doesn't that directly contradict the opinion that as long as you except Jesus as your lord and saviour you are sitting on a first class ticket to heaven, no exceptions? (I'm not sure if that is your view, but other posters seem to profess that view pretty frequently).

philologos

strobe wrote: »

:eek: Ok now I'm worried.

There's always a first

strobe wrote: »

See this is where I struggle a bit. How could the argument be made that the works follow on from the faith, as people of a different faith (or none) can produce identical works...?

Let me explain it better. If one is claiming to be a Christian, in all due reality, that should be manifesting itself in their daily living. They should be living in a Christian manner, or at least show signs of living such a manner.

This doesn't mean to say that people don't slip up occasionally, but there should be a difference in behaviour in someone both pre-acceptance and post-acceptance of Christianity.

strobe wrote: »

Do you think it goes both ways? "Faith without works is really dead and works without faith are meaningless"?

I would regard it as a logical trapdoor if you will. It is only applicable for saying that faith without works typical of such faith is dead. Remember you judge a tree by its fruits.

I wouldn't say that works done by non-Christians are meaningless. They can be well intended, and even beneficial. They are not Christ-inspired though.

strobe wrote: »

But doesn't that directly contradict the opinion that as long as you except Jesus as your lord and saviour you are sitting on a first class ticket to heaven, no exceptions? (I'm not sure if that is your view, but other posters seem to profess that view pretty frequently).

I don't see how it does. I've gone and made an extra distinction in this post though, so take a read and see if the contradiction is still present.

mcmickey

We must be careful to distinguish between these two aspects of salvation. In justification, God accepts the believer on account of Christ, and not because of anything that man does to merit God’s favour. As Paul says, he stands before God “not having mine own righteousness” but on “the righteousness which is from God by faith.” In sanctification, God enables the believer to live righteously: “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

Soul Winner

mcmickey wrote: »

We must be careful to distinguish between these two aspects of salvation. In justification, God accepts the believer on account of Christ, and not because of anything that man does to merit God’s favour. As Paul says, he stands before God “not having mine own righteousness” but on “the righteousness which is from God by faith.” In sanctification, God enables the believer to live righteously: “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

That pretty much sums it up. We connect to God by faith, we maintain that connection by faith and we finish our courses connected by faith. The good works that accrue in this time are due to the indwelt power of the Holy Spirit. It is not us doing these things, it is God who does them through us. Jesus said that without Him we can nothing.

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5

How do we get to abide in Him?

"So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." Ephesians 3:17

What is faith?

Believing and acting on a promise of God.

What promises can we act on? All of them throughout His Word.

"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." 2 Corinthians 1:20

Just pick one that fits your earthly circumstances. If you need provision then one of His names is Jehovah Jira (the LORD will provide). If you need healing then one of His names is Jehovah Rapha (the LORD that heals you). You just keep claiming the promise that fits and wait on Him to bring it to pass.

How do we claim promises of God? By believing them in your heart and speaking them.

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:10

All that needs to be preached is faith in Christ. God does everything else. Once you are trusting in Him He cleans up the house and He clothes you with new festive garments and He leads you to His salvation and He sanctifies you. We don't need self appointed fruit inspectors judging our faith by our works when we already have grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. He is not a resident policeman checking up to see if we are doing anything wrong, He wants to live in us by faith and regenerate us by His own mighty power which can easily displace our old natures and free us from its clutches and from dead works. All He wants us to do is to trust Him doing it, He'll do the righteous-ing, the justifying and the cleaning, we simply hang on in faith.

This is the power-engine that legalists would have us switch off and take the key out of and get of the car and push. We can't do it folks, if we could then we wouldn't need Jesus. Just keep trusting and stop worrying about good works, they'll eventual be born out, just revel in His grace and the power of His might, remembering that the One who has paid such a high price for our salvation has promised that He will never leave us nor forsake us even unto the end of the age. Praise His name.

lmaopml

In work at the moment and just got a chance to catch up on this thread...

Something strikes me as a newcomer(ish) to finding my faith and where I lay my cap.....

..and that is; from an RC perspective, the term 'Protestant' should be expanded in some ways really, I know it's an umbrella, but it's a crap one, because it's so multi coloured......it's abundantly clear that very many are extremely 'close' to the way RC view our continuing relationship with Jesus ( which is obviously the ultimate expression of our faith ) so close in fact that the lines are merely blurred rather than 'marked' so precisely....

..and yet others are miles away in terms of a very orthodox view...and would have what I would see as a more modern and 'spiritual' view of faith..

hmmm..

Perhaps because Luther was a Catholic and took a hell of a lot of that with him, it has stayed intact in those branches somewhat....especially when I just read through some of posters thoughts......

..... if looked at through Luthers eyes and the times that where in it - the 'emphasis' on faith and works was aligned more to the former by Luther, whereas they were never perhaps as clearly defined, they just went hand in hand beforehand....( perhaps he did this as a safeguard to what he observed at the time, and his fears for the faithful?) but there is seriously very little in the difference, on how we approach Jesus - other than perhaps whether our abidance in Christ gives us 'merit' and more Grace or no....

The Catholic Church teaches that when one is really living the Christian message, that they are only 'saved' by Jesus Christ, forgiven by Jesus Christ, and that our 'saving' if it happens will be as a result of our 'faith AND abidance in Christ which shows in our works.....
We are told that 'sin' seperates us from God, but obviously only he knows how 'grievous' those sins are. Rejection of God would be pretty much the worst of em though...

..perhaps the only difference here is that we believe we have the freewill to abide in Christ or no, and when we do abide we have the capabilities of sowing Grace in others and bearing fruit, and this is of 'merit' to us in Gods eyes to gain 'more' Grace....

It seems far clearer that a lot of it is 'semantics' when we're not slinging bible passages and just speaking in a narrative way; well to me anyway, that 'this' particular area of difference is not so different after all within perhaps most of the Christian world...

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Something strikes me as a newcomer(ish) to finding my faith and where I lay my cap.....

..and that is; from an RC perspective, the term 'Protestant' should be expanded in some ways really, I know it's an umbrella, but it's a crap one, because it's so multi coloured......it's abundantly clear that very many are extremely 'close' to the way RC view our continuing relationship with Jesus ( which is obviously the ultimate expression of our faith ) so close in fact that the lines are merely blurred rather than 'marked' so precisely....

..and yet others are miles away in terms of a very orthodox view...and would have what I would see as a more modern and 'spiritual' view of faith..

The term 'Protestant' is often used by RC's in a way that suggests a monolithic body of belief - when in fact few non-RC's here would refer to themselves as 'Protestant' - knowing that it says very little outside of stating that they aren't RC.

..... if looked at through Luthers eyes and the times that where in it - the 'emphasis' on faith and works was aligned more to the former by Luther, whereas they were never perhaps as clearly defined, they just went hand in hand beforehand....( perhaps he did this as a safeguard to what he observed at the time, and his fears for the faithful?) but there is seriously very little in the difference, on how we approach Jesus - other than perhaps whether our abidance in Christ gives us 'merit' and more Grace or no....

A read of Luthers account of his own conversion from Roman Catholic monk to born-again Christian might enlighten. It is interesting to note that he states himself to have "lectured in the university" - but from the position of an incorrect understanding of the way in which salvation is wrought. He (and it seems his Roman Catholic peers) stumbled over a particular section of Romans. Romand 1:17.

For I hated that word "righteousness of God," which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they call it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm

Interestingly, the link suggests this conversion event occurred 2 years after posting his 95 theses on Wittenbergs gate.

The Catholic Church teaches that when one is really living the Christian message, that they are only 'saved' by Jesus Christ, forgiven by Jesus Christ, and that our 'saving' if it happens will be as a result of our 'faith AND abidance in Christ which shows in our works.....

With the abidance in Christ itself being a work - it's something you have to do. Which would seem to suggest you agree you must do something to ensure you are finally saved.

We are told that 'sin' seperates us from God, but obviously only he knows how 'grievous' those sins are. Rejection of God would be pretty much the worst of em though...

..perhaps the only difference here is that we believe we have the freewill to abide in Christ or no, and when we do abide we have the capabilities of sowing Grace in others and bearing fruit, and this is of 'merit' to us in Gods eyes to gain 'more' Grace....

It seems far clearer that a lot of it is 'semantics' when we're not slinging bible passages and just speaking in a narrative way; well to me anyway, that 'this' particular area of difference is not so different after all within perhaps most of the Christian world...

Perhaps you could elaborate further on what you think will occur if you don't use your freewill to abide in Christ (without which works will not occur)?

TravelJunkie

I have a thought to add to this thread.

Expanding on what people have said that 'works' are the natural result of faith, or the fruit shall we say of God working in you. That works is not necessary for salvation, but a result of being reborn and having God working in your life.

I have this comment on works: people seem to refer to works as if works are good deed. 'I'll be a good person, etc.' what does that mean? Giving to the poor? Visiting the sick? Donating to the church?
I have deep respect for 'good' people. But going back to the basics, RC's need also to realise that God's definition of good works isn't the above. It's LOVE. You might donate to a charity every month, but do you love your enstranged brother? Do you love a person who has offended you? Do you pray for someone who has hurt you? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you forgive easily?
And this applies to all christians.
I believe that if you are very close to God (through faith) and have fellowship with him, Christ's compassion can work in your life. And, if you do land up loving your enemies because of it, KNOW that it is Christ in you and not you, that is doing this WORK.

I hope I'm clear.

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

The Catholic Church teaches that when one is really living the Christian message, that they are only 'saved' by Jesus Christ, forgiven by Jesus Christ, and that our 'saving' if it happens will be as a result of our 'faith AND abidance in Christ which shows in our works.....

I think thats the distinction that causes the issue. The 'faith AND abidance'. That should read, 'Abidance IN faith'. It may seem semantical, but its an important distinction. The first one denotes things seperate of each other, while the second one denotes a symbiotic relationship.

We are told that 'sin' seperates us from God, but obviously only he knows how 'grievous' those sins are. Rejection of God would be pretty much the worst of em though...

I think entering the realm of sin 'grading' is unwise tbh. This idea of mortal sin etc is nonsense. We must view sin in terms of God and not in terms of Man. Grading sins can lul us into a false sense of security, and really serves no useful purpose. We are all sinners, and we all need Gods grace. Sins inheratance is death, be you a thief or a child rapist. All we need know, is that Gods mercy can save us from even the most heinous of sin. Look at Davids adultery, and then murder of his mistresses husband. Look at Paul and his persecuting Christs body. It serves no useful purpose to tell people how grave the sins are as if there is a checklist. Its hearts that need to change, and from that a change of action will flow.

antiskeptic

Slav wrote: »

On the other hand why would Church need to present or even research the details and criteria of salvation when it Christ who saves, not the Church?

That it's a motorcycle that transports you at 100mph doesn't mean there is no need for me to tell you how to ride the bike

If the church thinks that is has nothing of substance to say on how salvation is wrought and that there is no advantage in one being a member of the church in that vital respect - then I think it should come out and state so clearly.

Let's not be coy here: large swathes of Roman Catholicism believe that their good deeds/their being Roman Catholics/their adhering to the teachings of the church/their partaking in sacraments ... will in some way or other, contribute towards their salvation or their chances of salvation.

Saying that, RCC is not completely silent on salvation. It clearly says who saves (Christ) and how it looks from our perspective (grace). I don't see it much different to the common Protestant understanding. I think the root cause of the majority (if not all) disagreements between Catholics and Protestants are not faith matters but rather ecclesiological differences. They don't agree on what is Church and what its role should be.

"By Christ + Grace .. yet mysterious" says nothing pertinant to a person desiring salvation that silence itself wouldn't achieve. Why should we not apply Ockhams Razor to this aspect of the Roman church?

I wouldn't agree that Protestanism in the main shares this "shrugged shoulders" approach. Aside from Calvinism (which at root must agree with Roman Catholicism that, for all it knows, God throws dice in deciding who to apply his grace to and to whom not),

Protestantism appears to hold to some or other version of grace applied to a man who recognises his need for a saviour and places his faith in the God who says he's supplied that saviour. By grace - through faith. Man recognising and accepting his need will result in salvation. Whereas in RC, his recogising and accepting his need is responded to with ...."perhaps, perhaps not".

Is this not a glaring difference to your mind?

StealthRolex did not post in the thread, did they? Onesimus and Smurfhousing were more attacking Protestant position rather then explaining the Catholic teachings. Anyway, what question this thread is dealing with? What is the RCC teaching

I suppose I'm relying on the Roman Catholic participants here to be the ambassadors for that teaching. That a person attacks the no-works Protestant position by pointing to biblical passages they say demand works for salvation is demonstrating Roman Catholic teaching - as they understand it.

lmaopml has still to clarify her position. But she seems to be saying that a person must "abide in Christ" in order to be saved. "Must abide or else" = a work.

Without answering the OP question first I guess it would not be too interesting. I also think that phrasing it like this is not really nice unless you can prove your claim somehow (but in this case what was the point of starting this thread if you already knew the answer).

The thread arose out of a discussion with lmaopml who seems to be swimming against the RC tide. I say this in the context of having discussed with Roman Catholics on forums for a number of years - where I've come across Roman Catholics who could blow even the Jehovahs Witness' out of the water re: their scriptural adroitness.

I already "knew the answer" in that sense .. and was seeking to see what the Roman Catholics here would say in response to lmaopml. I was interested in seeing what her response would be to a flurry of "works-required responses". So far she's not really come out and clarified her position.

Assuming it is the case that the Roman church doesn't teach works required then I'd be interested in what Roman Catholic posters have to say to this.

They know enough. BTW, looking again at the way you're phrased it, have we already started treating Catholics as mentally challenged if their beliefs are not the same as ours without trying to understand where they are coming from?

I wouldn't mind knowing where they are coming from w.r.t. to mystery on the issue of their salvation. "By grace + silence on how one accesses that grace" is dangling carrot in front of peoples nose. You talk later about what people will naturally do when carrots (or lifeboats) are dangled on front of their noses. Work, strain and strive .. in the expectation that their work will gain them that carrot.

That is cruel and unusual teaching.


The Calvinist rational for worshipping a God who might have chosen him by dice holds some water - there is something to thank God for now that he's been chosen. The Roman Catholic rationale for worshipping a God who might chose them by dice is somewhat problematic.

So what? Isn't it a fair position? If you find yourself on your own in the ocean near your sunk ship and see a lifeboat that mysteriously appeared nearby isn't it natural to try to make your way to it? Is it it natural to think that those on board are not obliged to rescue you no matter how strongly you believe that they are the true and the only saviours but it's only by their mercy you can be saved? Especially if you realise that you do not deserve to be among those on the lifeboat (and somehow it's your fault as well that the ship has sunk). Isn't it natural to have a hope still?

When you say "try to make your to it" what do you mean precisely? Are you saying that the work/abiding that a person does helps a person get closer to this lifeboat?

I'm also thinking of a similar analogy which see's a plane crashing in the desert. The advice given is to stay put and wait for salvation to come to you. To not go wandering off.

Since Roman Catholic teaching is silent on the issue of works as a way to get closer to the lifeboat aspect of God, I don't see why a person should plump for your analogy over mine.

lmaopml

I believe that if you are very close to God (through faith) and have fellowship with him, Christ's compassion can work in your life. And, if you do land up loving your enemies because of it, KNOW that it is Christ in you and not you, that is doing this WORK.

I hope I'm clear.

Hi Travel Junkie...Antiskeptic, Jimi.....
Just caught up and will read in more detail later....a quick thought though...and I’m open to correction by my Catholic brothers or sisters online....
Cheers for all the responses it's been eye opening..
I know ‘clarity’ is hard sometimes because terminology can get in the way of what we really mean sometimes Travel Junkie....
I hope I haven’t given the impression that these good deeds come from anything other than the grace of God within...I don’t believe I have. When I say we have ‘free will’, I mean we have a nature of ‘will’ that resides in us both with Christ, and apart from Christ when we ‘sin’...
I agree with you on this....All ‘good’ deeds come from God working through and in us...
..and it’s only by Grace that we are saved...
I hope you understand this, I’m trying to use the lingo properly and in context with Protestant terms so as not to offend, and also to give the ‘proper’ context and regard to our Catholic understanding.....What you think we believe and what we actually are taught to believe are sometimes really wayyyy off, and weirdly misrepresentative, so much so, that I am appalled by some remarks....and then I lol...
So the term ‘work’ is apparently misunderstood between the faiths......more especially perhaps from the osas perspective! It’s spoken of in Scripture, this 'work' and Jesus does infer that there is a ‘timeline’ to our ‘saving’....and a time of perseverance in grace, to cherish the ‘gift’ and not be too boastful of where we ‘stand’ lest we ‘fall’. This doesn’t balance out too well with osas....! A ‘timeline’ doesn’t necessarily mean to go around like a fretting maniac; rather to have a ‘responsibility’ to honour this gift and be obedient to the Commandments....to stay the course and persevere in our 'saving Grace..' [ not to persevere going around doing 'good deeds' for the sake of them]
Travel Junkie, I would imagine the hard ‘work’ is fighting our own freewill and our human nature, to give ourselves over to Christ and the Holy spirit fully.....When we have the opportunity to allow his will to flow freely from us and live in us, we bear fruit, and we are given more grace the more we abide ‘with’ him who lives inside. Catholics believe in freedom of will...that at it’s best ‘merit’ plays it’s part secondary to the ‘will’ of God......
..however, we do believe that if we reject God, than the gift of salvation can be lost. We have just returned it to sender with a ‘no thanks’ attached, and that’s our decision.
We don’t ‘work’ our way to salvation as the op believes....I am Catholic and I know my salvation is through my final ‘Grace’ in Jesus, so while I may be confident I am saved today, I am ‘still’ being saved tomorrow etc. etc.
I believe this is a poorly informed opinion on Catholics, and perhaps inadvertently skewed by terminology, unless examining our actions and conscience is ‘work’ too?
Surely, Protestants do the very same thing?

smurfhousing

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that Protestanism in the main shares this "shrugged shoulders" approach. Aside from Calvinism (which at root must agree with Roman Catholicism that, for all it knows, God throws dice in deciding who to apply his grace to and to whom not),

God doesn't withhold his grace from anyone. If we want to be saved, God will provide all that is necessary for this to take place.

God created us without our consent, but He won't save us without our consent.

I don't think dice come into it; if we persevere to the end we will be saved.

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

God doesn't withhold his grace from anyone. If we want to be saved, God will provide all that is necessary for this to take place.

Although I'd frame it slightly differently, I agree

Question: how do you indicate to God that you want to be saved.

God created us without our consent, but He won't save us without our consent.

I agree.

I don't think dice come into it; if we persevere to the end we will be saved.

I don't think dice come into it myself either.

I was suggesting that dice could very well come into it if you held the view of Roman Catholic teaching that Slav appears to hold. His view of RC teaching suggests that how you are saved is a 'mystery'. If so, then how you are saved might be by:

- persevering to the end (by which I take you to mean, works of some variety or other) or..
- the protestant ideas of by faith alone or..
- God throwing a dice...

...or something else. Mystery permits all-comers. Including dice.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic, as requested. Hope it helps and I trust it will not draw me into some theological firefight:D

StealthRolex wrote: »

I believe everyone, Catholics included, begin their lives headed not for heaven and it is by what we do in this life that decides where we wind up. Those who reject Christ go to hell, those who do what they're told go to heaven, and those that do not die in a state of grace spend some time in purgatory paying off their debt.

StealthRolex

There's a former Baptist on the Catholic Answers forum has a take on the works - salvation issue, and a few other things. Well worth a read.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=463801

wrote:

The third lie was the accusation that Catholics believe they can attain our own salvation without Christ, through works. I have never met a Catholic in their right mind who believes they are ‘working their way to Heaven.’ The Catholic Church teaches that one must have Faith to be saved. Without that, no one is saved. Grace alone (not faith alone) lets us recognize Christ and we are made capable through grace to respond to Him, that is, meet Him through faith, and then to cooperate with Him: bring forth fruit and glorify Him. Faith without works is dead, being alone.Works without faith are of no value. Faith without works is dead. Faith, joined with works, demonstrates that Grace is present. Faith precedes works, but faith without works is not the kind that saves. So, faith saves, but faith without works is not faith at all. It's a neglected gift that gets us nowhere.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

There's a former Baptist on the Catholic Answers forum has a take on the works - salvation issue, and a few other things. Well worth a read.

If he's a former Baptist then he sounds like a rather dishonest one.

Few if any Baptists would believe that Catholics are trying to attain their salvation "without Christ, through works". They would believe that Catholics are trying to attain salvation "with Christ, through works" - a position that you, Stealth Rolex, appear to be advocating.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

If he's a former Baptist then he sounds like a rather dishonest one.

Few if any Baptists would believe that Catholics are trying to attain their salvation "without Christ, through works". They would believe that Catholics are trying to attain salvation "with Christ, through works" - a position that you, Stealth Rolex, appear to be advocating.

He signs himself "From fundamentalist preacher to Catholic:" and I suspect an American so possible not dishonest but maybe a different flavour of Baptist to those you may be familiar with. Maybe best ask him yourself.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

He signs himself "From fundamentalist preacher to Catholic:" and I suspect an American so possible not dishonest but maybe a different flavour of Baptist to those you may be familiar with. Maybe best ask him yourself.

I am very familiar with American Baptists.

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose I'm relying on the Roman Catholic participants here to be the ambassadors for that teaching. That a person attacks the no-works Protestant position by pointing to biblical passages they say demand works for salvation is demonstrating Roman Catholic teaching - as they understand it.

lmaopml has still to clarify her position. But she seems to be saying that a person must "abide in Christ" in order to be saved. "Must abide or else" = a work.

The thread arose out of a discussion with lmaopml who seems to be swimming against the RC tide. I say this in the context of having discussed with Roman Catholics on forums for a number of years - where I've come across Roman Catholics who could blow even the Jehovahs Witness' out of the water re: their scriptural adroitness.

I already "knew the answer" in that sense .. and was seeking to see what the Roman Catholics here would say in response to lmaopml. I was interested in seeing what her response would be to a flurry of "works-required responses". So far she's not really come out and clarified her position.

Assuming it is the case that the Roman church doesn't teach works required then I'd be interested in what Roman Catholic posters have to say to this.

Ok, so after all it was the question about the local RC posters rather then some official RCC doctrine of works-salvation. In this case my views on the matter are completely irrelevant as I'm not a RC. Sorry, I was confused by the thread name.

StealthRolex

From the Catholic Catechism

Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer

If it helps the highlighted parts are the "works" as they involve active doing.

The bolded section implies works for our brothers and sisters in need.

Works salvation is not "a doctrine" as such and not in the Protestant sense as I understand it but we are expected to "do" certain things.

But it gets complicated - doing things for salvation alone is selfish and are not counted towards salvation. We do them because we want to please God. To do them for salvation is to please ourselves and seek our own benefit and that is not pleasing to God.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose I'm relying on the Roman Catholic participants here to be the ambassadors for that teaching. That a person attacks the no-works Protestant position by pointing to biblical passages they say demand works for salvation is demonstrating Roman Catholic teaching - as they understand it.

lmaopml has still to clarify her position. But she seems to be saying that a person must "abide in Christ" in order to be saved. "Must abide or else" = a work.


Assuming it is the case that the Roman church doesn't teach works required then I'd be interested in what Roman Catholic posters have to say to this.

Hi Antiskeptic,

I don't believe I am 'swimming against the tide'.....I was just trying to 'clarify' a sweeping statement about what RC's believe, that I've seen posted numerous times and I think is wrong or misleading about us and what we 'actually' believe I understand some of us are entrenched etc. but talk is good, and helps to banish predjudices...
....and at the same time understand in a narrative way, the way my other Christian brothers and sisters believe they have salvation, because I am interested to hear it..not to 'bash' it, just to hear and chat...

I was trying to 'clarify' exactly what those 'works' are......ie 'Love your neighbour' etc. and see how far the alternate view of our saving goes with what they would consider 'any' kind of effort or 'work' iykwim...even down to baptism and sin / repentence...I see opinion can be diverse, it's just difficult to know sometimes where a poster is coming from, but sometimes it helps to know...


I think having the chat here has probably highlighted something to me that I am beginning to understand better from our respective branches....ie. that really the 'Free will' debate and if we 'have' it, means that we can be 'active' in Grace or not active because of our free will........and if we don't have 'Free Will', it calls into question the nature of the God of Justice I know and understand, and leads on to a more predestination kind of thinking....I guess these are fundamental to how we view our 'saving' and how active we are, and how 'just' God is....

I wondered how Luther resolved this? and how other branches do too? The freewill end of things?......

Work, strain and strive .. in the expectation that their work will gain them that carrot.

That is cruel and unusual teaching.

Truely I can tell you it isn't...and about 3/4 of the Christian world don't believe in osas, so it's defo not unusual! certainly not from a Catholic perspective; you must understand real Catholics have the faith and grace of Jesus within too, and that comes first...we want to respect that grace by cooperating with his will and to Love our Neighbour etc. I can understand from your position as osas that it may 'seem' that way; but then osas is foreign to me too and full of questions as to 'our nature' and 'God's nature' and our responsibility towards others after we believe we are saved......So.....ye know...I guess it seems mad, but in a way it can be down to particular 'sematics' or at least it can look that way sometimes...

I guess the idea of full free will to accept or reject Jesus means that we must recognise some 'merit' to the choice, and I know some Protestants don't understand the nature of this 'merit'.....and fully believe that we are 'working' our salvation, without really understanding that it stems from our 'free will'...I tried to explain; albeit in perhaps a confusing way..I'm sorry...

Since Roman Catholic teaching is silent on the issue of works as a way to get closer to the lifeboat aspect of God, I don't see why a person should plump for your analogy over mine.

Actually, Slav, even though he/she is not an RC, has a closer idea of the way we view our attaining salvation...Slav has perhaps very accurately described at one stage earlier in the debate how the definitions prior to and after the Reformation seemed to gain more needless distance, simply because of the 'defining'....and tension...but the guy/girl was 'closer' to the truth than some suppositions I've seen posted here...

I guess, it's seems an odd concept to me as an RC to think I'm saved today when I could reject God tomorrow...I hope you understand I'm not being mean or callous about it, just really saying that we would see this as self assured and boastful of our status - I do however understand the psych behind 'boasting' in Jesus - of course I do....however I guess we have to agree to disagree on our participation in being saved and actually whether that happens today or when we are finally judged judged...

You could say that Catholics believe our 'work' to abide with Christ and fight our nature is 'working' our way to Salvation; but the more honest way of saying it, is that we believe we gain more 'grace' to be saved by abiding within Christ and honouring his gift while we have 'free will' and are alive before we are judged...

Long winded maybe pml...but it's the honest to goodness truth..

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

If it helps the highlighted parts are the "works" as they involve active doing.

Works salvation is not "a doctrine" as such and not in the Protestant sense as I understand it but we are expected to "do" certain things.

Fair enough. The Bible too exhorts Christians to do things.

But it gets complicated - doing things for salvation alone is selfish and are not counted towards salvation. We do them because we want to please God. To do them for salvation is to please ourselves and seek our own benefit and that is not pleasing to God.

Am I safe in presuming you hold that these "pleasing to God works" go towards procuring your salvation (or failing to do these "pleasing to God" works go towards losing you the salvation you might otherwise have)?

It is not possible to remove one side of a coin from the other: a work that is pleasing to God, which also happens to go towards procuring your salvation is a work that cannot but have it's motivation 'polluted' by the desire for salvation through it.

To suppose otherwise is to suppose a government minister taking donations from a big businessman isn't totally compromised by the fact that his portfolio and the interests of the big businessman dovetail perfectly.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Antiskeptic

Hi..

I don't believe I am 'swimming against the tide'.....I was just trying to 'clarify' a sweeping statement about what RC's believe, that I've seen posted numerous times and I think is wrong or misleading about us and what we 'actually' believe I understand some of us are entrenched etc. but talk is good, and helps to banish predjudices...

Let's suppose I'm taking the Roman Catholic view as stated by your fellow Roman Catholics - both here and on other forums - as representitive of the Roman teaching. They all appear to be suggesting that we must have good works on our account in order to be saved/retain salvation.

And you seem to be suggesting otherwise - although some clarification is required on that - hence the 'tide' reference.

....and at the same time understand in a narrative way, the way my other Christian brothers and sisters believe they have salvation, because I am interested to hear it..not to 'bash' it, just to hear and chat...

Okay.

I'm not calling the Pope the antiChrist. Nor saying that Roman Catholics aren't saved.

But I'll retain the (veiled) right to consider works-teaching unscriptural and hold the opinion that any official teaching construed in works-fashion by a large swathe of it's adherants is faulty teaching.

I hope you don't take that as bashing.

I was trying to 'clarify' exactly what those 'works' are......ie 'Love your neighbour' etc. and see how far the alternate view of our saving goes with what they would consider 'any' kind of effort or 'work' iykwim...even down to baptism and sin / repentence...I see opinion can be diverse, it's just difficult to know sometimes where a poster is coming from, but sometimes it helps to know...

A work is anything that must be done by you in order that your salvation be achieved/retained. Works motivated by a love for God - but which if ot done result in your not being saved are included in this category due to the motivation being polluted by association (see my post to StealthRolex above)

I think having the chat here has probably highlighted something to me that I am beginning to understand better from our respective branches....ie. that really the 'Free will' debate and if we 'have' it, means that we can be 'active' in Grace or not active because of our free will........and if we don't have 'Free Will', it calls into question the nature of the God of Justice I know and understand, and leads on to a more predestination kind of thinking....I guess these are fundamental to how we view our 'saving' and how active we are, and how 'just' God is....

I wondered how Luther resolved this? and how other branches do too? The freewill end of things?......

Excluding Calvinism, the other perspectives (including my own) involve man's free-will in his salvation - although there are variations in how mans' free-willed choice is enabled by God. Typically however, the freewilled decision is a once-off one: for/against God. Once made for God, man is placed permanently in God's camp.

There is no ongoing requirement for a free-willed expression for God in order to retain one's salvation.

Truely I can tell you it isn't...and about 3/4 of the Christian world don't believe in osas, so it's defo not unusual!

I'm not quite sure on those figures. Whilst the non-OSAS groups believe that there are rare circumstances when a saved person turns around and completely rejects God and is lost, they don't hold that a persons work plays any part in their salvation in the broad sense.

certainly not from a Catholic perspective; you must understand real Catholics have the faith and grace of Jesus within too, and that comes first...we want to respect that grace by cooperating with his will and to Love our Neighbour etc. I can understand from your position as osas that it may 'seem' that way;

A real Catholic - like real Protestant, has times when Christ comes second, when he doesn't respect that grace and doesn't cooperate with God's will (indeed, he will actively act against God's will). In the Protestant case, his doing so won't have any bearing on his salvation.

Can we say the same of the Catholic case?

but then osas is foreign to me too and full of questions as to 'our nature' and 'God's nature' and our responsibility towards others after we believe we are saved......So.....ye know...I guess it seems mad, but in a way it can be down to particular 'sematics' or at least it can look that way sometimes...

What questions?

My being OSAS doesn't in any way diminish my responsibility towards God and others. It just places it on a different footing to the belief that says that: "I've responsibility ...and if I don't meet that responsibility then dire eternal consequences could follow as a result.."

Consider the position I'm in as OSAS: not meeting my responsibilities/not being obedient to God/not loving God involves my spitting in the face of a Father who won't stop loving me despite my spitting in his face. It involves me driving that nail into Christs hands everytime I sin - yet he won't stop loving me. Do you think OSAS is burden free? Or do you think that the further you stray the harder the burden becomes to bear?

Roman Catholicism poses a father who is prepared to cut off his love. Rendering his love conditional on your behaviour. That's a completely different kind of father than the one I've got. And a lesser one in my opinion.

I guess the idea of full free will to accept or reject Jesus means that we must recognise some 'merit' to the choice, and I know some Protestants don't understand the nature of this 'merit'.....and fully believe that we are 'working' our salvation, without really understanding that it stems from our 'free will'...I tried to explain; albeit in perhaps a confusing way..I'm sorry...

A good point:

What you appear to be saying (and I think you are correct) is that all a 'work' involves ultimately, is an expression of the will. The work is an outworking of the heart within. Not that this solves you problem given that scripture exclude both a man working for AND a man willing for .. his salvation.

The Protestant objection holds that Roman Catholicisms infant baptism/communion/confirmation process don't produce spiritual rebirth in and of themselves. Without that change occurring, there is no Holy Spirit within and thus no actual love of God. All that is left is a Religious "working for salvation".

Which is not to say a Roman Catholic cannot be born again in the Protestant sense (I know some who are). Their being born again occurred in spite of rather than because of infant baptism etc. In which case the born-again Roman Catholic who is motivated to work from love of God is doing so because God resides within. They are OSAS - it's just that Roman Catholic teaching veils this message from them. You don't need to know you are OSAS in order to be OSAS. I mean, since when did believing something not the case make it not the case

Actually, Slav, even though he/she is not an RC, has a closer idea of the way we view our attaining salvation...Slav has perhaps very accurately described at one stage earlier in the debate how the definitions prior to and after the Reformation seemed to gain more needless distance, simply because of the 'defining'....and tension...but the guy/girl was 'closer' to the truth than some suppositions I've seen posted here...

Unfortunately, citing salvation a 'mystery' dispenses with a significant leg of the Roman Catholic church. If the RC church is silent on the issue of how one is saved (it is not saying anything to point out that salvation is "in Christ" - without saying how one get's "into Christ") then what possible use is it to anyone?

I guess, it's seems an odd concept to me as an RC to think I'm saved today when I could reject God tomorrow...I hope you understand I'm not being mean or callous about it, just really saying that we would see this as self assured and boastful of our status - I do however understand the psych behind 'boasting' in Jesus - of course I do....however I guess we have to agree to disagree on our participation in being saved and actually whether that happens today or when we are finally judged judged...

You could do well to examine where you find the "self" in self-assured when there is no reference to self in salvation.

You could say that Catholics believe our 'work' to abide with Christ and fight our nature is 'working' our way to Salvation; but the more honest way of saying it, is that we believe we gain more 'grace' to be saved by abiding within Christ and honouring his gift while we have 'free will' and are alive before we are judged...

Long winded maybe pml...but it's the honest to goodness truth..

It doesn't really matter which way you dress it up. If we're to strip away the semantics we can say that a salvation that depends upon what you will for/do is a salvation that is not utterly of grace.

It is not utterly freely given to you.

It is in someway conditional on your ongoing behaviour.

That is what is meant by "works".





__________________________


There's a scene in the film "Parenthood" in which Jason Robards (Steve Martins 'Dad') monologues on the inextricable bonds that descend on a person when they become a father (or mother). Bonds that are made whether the person likes it or not. He bemoans the fact that these bonds don't evaporate once the child arrives at the age of 18. Nor when the child is 21 .. or 31 .. or 61. He makes the point that has been made by fathers and mothers all over the world since time immemorial: once a father you never stop being a father. Ever.

This primal human experience regarding the inseverable ties that exist between a child and their parent ... is the model chosen by God in which he reveals the nature of the relationship that comes into existance between Himself and those that he gives birth to.

Yet you 9and the church teaching you adhere) to insist you can lose your salvation? Now, before you go pointing to those situations were earthly fathers do reject their offspring, might I remind you that God isn't subject to a fallen nature, so there's no point on modelling him on those examples.

And I'd point you to the parable of the Prodigal Son.

OSAS = OFAF (once a Father always a Father)

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I safe in presuming you hold that these "pleasing to God works" go towards procuring your salvation (or failing to do these "pleasing to God" works go towards losing you the salvation you might otherwise have)?

It is not possible to remove one side of a coin from the other: a work that is pleasing to God, which also happens to go towards procuring your salvation is a work that cannot but have it's motivation 'polluted' by the desire for salvation through it.

To suppose otherwise is to suppose a government minister taking donations from a big businessman isn't totally compromised by the fact that his portfolio and the interests of the big businessman dovetail perfectly.

Am I safe in presuming you are applying human reason to God?

For God all things are possible be it putting camels through the eye of e needle, admitting rich men to heaven or separating the head from the tail of a coin.

At judgement are hearts and souls are put in the balance and the fate of souls of those found wanting are at the mercy of God.

Many times Jesus was and is asked "what to I do to inherit eternal life". For an answer we have the rich man who was told to give up materialism, sell everything and give it to the poor, and follow Jesus.

If you want guaranteed salvation it is clear the way is that of Jesus, the Saints or martyrdom. The reset of us are reliant on Gods mercy.

StealthRolex

Having been cited, if I may assist...

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's suppose I'm taking the Roman Catholic view as stated by your fellow Roman Catholics - both here and on other forums - as representitive of the Roman teaching. They all appear to be suggesting that we must have good works on our account in order to be saved/retain salvation.

And you seem to be suggesting otherwise - although some clarification is required on that - hence the 'tide' reference.

There is Biblical support for works assisting toward salvation but it is by the Mercy of Jesus and the Grace of God that we are saved and in distillation it is by Grace that we our saved.
From Grace all other things follow, that includes faith and works

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay.

Great

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not calling the Pope the antiChrist. Nor saying that Roman Catholics aren't saved.

But I'll retain the (veiled) right to consider works-teaching unscriptural and hold the opinion that any official teaching construed in works-fashion by a large swathe of it's adherants is faulty teaching.

Your right is so heavily veiled you cannot see through it to the truth. works alone teaching is unscriptural.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A work is anything that must be done by you in order that your salvation be achieved/retained. Works motivated by a love for God - but which if ot done result in your not being saved are included in this category due to the motivation being polluted by association (see my post to StealthRolex above)

baptism is not a work - it is something you receive, not do.

Grace is not a work - it is something you receive, not do.

Grace is received at baptism and has nothing to do with works. Should a baby die immediately after baptism or at any time before they are capable of sin they go straight to heaven.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure on those figures. Whilst the non-OSAS groups believe that there are rare circumstances when a saved person turns around and completely rejects God and is lost, they don't hold that a persons work plays any part in their salvation in the broad sense.

Read Mattew, again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A real Catholic - like real Protestant, has times when Christ comes second, when he doesn't respect that grace and doesn't cooperate with God's will (indeed, he will actively act against God's will). In the Protestant case, his doing so won't have any bearing on his salvation.

Can we say the same of the Catholic case?

This maybe because adherents to OSAS feel they can live lives of sin with not consequences in the afterlife.
Unfortunately there is only one way to find out.

Scripturally we are called to reject sin and OSAS does not support this and so is scriptural, unbiblical and unchristian.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My being OSAS doesn't in any way diminish my responsibility towards God and others. It just places it on a different footing to the belief that says that: "I've responsibility ...and if I don't meet that responsibility then dire eternal consequences could follow as a result.."

so are you saying you can lose your salvation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider the position I'm in as OSAS: not meeting my responsibilities/not being obedient to God/not loving God involves my spitting in the face of a Father who won't stop loving me despite my spitting in his face. It involves me driving that nail into Christs hands everytime I sin - yet he won't stop loving me. Do you think OSAS is burden free? Or do you think that the further you stray the harder the burden becomes to bear?

Roman Catholicism poses a father who is prepared to cut off his love. Rendering his love conditional on your behaviour. That's a completely different kind of father than the one I've got. And a lesser one in my opinion.

Not true. Anyone you rejects God brings it upon themselves. They are give the choice and if they choose Hell that is their choice, not Gods.
Gods love is perfect and unconditional. Human love is not always unconditional and far from perfect though we can get close as we can with Gods Grace.

The Roman Catholicism you propose exists only in your own mind and the minds of other Protestants
[/quote]

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Protestant objection holds that Roman Catholicisms infant baptism/communion/confirmation process don't produce spiritual rebirth in and of themselves. Without that change occurring, there is no Holy Spirit within and thus no actual love of God. All that is left is a Religious "working for salvation".

Then what Protestantsim understands of Catholic baptism is in error.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is not to say a Roman Catholic cannot be born again in the Protestant sense (I know some who are). Their being born again occurred in spite of rather than because of infant baptism etc. In which case the born-again Roman Catholic who is motivated to work from love of God is doing so because God resides within. They are OSAS - it's just that Roman Catholic teaching veils this message from them. You don't need to know you are OSAS in order to be OSAS. I mean, since when did believing something not the case make it not the case

The case is that the Protestant teaching of OSAS is completely in error and the truth is veiled from Protestants. Unless you choose to seek the truth you will not find it.

Believing something is or is not the case making it the case is the same argument atheists propose for the existence of God, is it not. "Because we believe in God does not make it so" is their argument.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unfortunately, citing salvation a 'mystery' dispenses with a significant leg of the Roman Catholic church. If the RC church is silent on the issue of how one is saved (it is not saying anything to point out that salvation is "in Christ" - without saying how one get's "into Christ") then what possible use is it to anyone?

The Church is not silent. One "gets into Christ" through Baptism which brings Grace through which we are saved.
We may lose this grace through our rejection of God through sin and that is our choice.
We may regain grace through confession, repentance and penance and that too is our choice.
Through have grace and faith and the Holy Spirit other things happen for the good and that can increase our grace.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't really matter which way you dress it up. If we're to strip away the semantics we can say that a salvation that depends upon what you will for/do is a salvation that is not utterly of grace.

It is not utterly freely given to you.

It is in someway conditional on your ongoing behaviour.

That is what is meant by "works".

Applying a Protestant definition of works to what a Catholic believes or understands is not going to work because the Protestant definition is heretical to a Catholic.

We are saved by Grace which is freely give. We may lose it through our own action or inaction and we may regain it by asking for forgiveness with a sincere and contrite heart. We may gain more by doing good and not evil but that is up to God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet you 9and the church teaching you adhere) to insist you can lose your salvation? Now, before you go pointing to those situations were earthly fathers do reject their offspring, might I remind you that God isn't subject to a fallen nature, so there's no point on modelling him on those examples.

As I said, this concept exists in your own mind. You create it, apply it to Catholicism and base your argument on that. I think we call that a straw man.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I'd point you to the parable of the Prodigal Son.

OSAS = OFAF (once a Father always a Father)

In the parable the Father is an analogy for God.

are you saying OGAG and applying this to yourself?

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Am I safe in presuming you are applying human reason to God?

No.

I'm applying God's logic to God. Not even God can make an object too heavy for him to lift. Not even God can make a single sided coin.

Logically there is no problem with a camel going through the eye of a needl, nor a cow jumping over the moon.

At judgement are hearts and souls are put in the balance and the fate of souls of those found wanting are at the mercy of God.

Many times Jesus was and is asked "what to I do to inherit eternal life". For an answer we have the rich man who was told to give up materialism, sell everything and give it to the poor, and follow Jesus.

I'll leave aside the conclusion we should draw from the rich mans sadness on hearing this news. For this discussion isn't about whether the Bible teaches a works salvation, it's about whether Roman Catholicism teaches (or is understood to teach) works-required-for-salvation.

If you want guaranteed salvation it is clear the way is that of Jesus, the Saints or martyrdom.

Could you elaborate? How does martyrdom guarantee salvation?

The reset of us are reliant on Gods mercy.

Which is 'mysteriously' applied (Slav) or is a function (in part or in whole) of the work we do (yourself it would seem).

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is Biblical support for works assisting toward salvation but it is by the Mercy of Jesus and the Grace of God that we are saved and in distillation it is by Grace that we our saved.
From Grace all other things follow, that includes faith and works

If the works flow from grace and grace from God then the works aren't yours - their God's through you.

If you can prevent the works flowing then the fact works flow relies upon your permission. In which case we have a mainline works salvation - no buts about it.

Your right is so heavily veiled you cannot see through it to the truth. works alone teaching is unscriptural.

I've not suggested salvation is by works alone (indeed it is clear that it cannot be by works alone). Any element of "your work is involved" makes it the salvation a works-salvation, for the purposes of discussion.

baptism is not a work - it is something you receive, not do.


Grace is not a work - it is something you receive, not do.

Grace is received at baptism and has nothing to do with works. Should a baby die immediately after baptism or at any time before they are capable of sin they go straight to heaven.

Baptism is a work carried out by another on your behalf so technically it too is work. But we can leave aside special cases and concentrate on the great unwashed.

Am I correct in assuming the most loving, self-sacrificial thing you could do for your baby is murder it? Agape love at work?

Read Mattew, again.

After you get around to answering my question regarding same perhaps. Works a cause of salvation or a consequence of salvation. Matthew 25 doesn't say..

This maybe because adherents to OSAS feel they can live lives of sin with not consequences in the afterlife. Unfortunately there is only one way to find out.

OSAS do believe there are consequences of sinning both in this life and in the hereafter. It's just that those consequences don't include loss of salvation.

Scripturally we are called to reject sin and OSAS does not support this and so is scriptural, unbiblical and unchristian.

Am I to take this to mean that the only motivation you can concieve of for rejecting sin is the threat of eternal hell? OSAS knows that sin won't produce hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for sinning.

so are you saying you can lose your salvation?

Re-read it. The quotes marks and comparitive language mean I'm paraphrasing the Roman Catholic position.


I don't believe I can lose my salvation. 0% chance.

Not true. Anyone you rejects God brings it upon themselves. They are give the choice and if they choose Hell that is their choice, not Gods.
Gods love is perfect and unconditional. Human love is not always unconditional and far from perfect though we can get close as we can with Gods Grace.

If God's love is unconditional it can't be removed under any condition. Do you know what unconditional means?

Then what Protestantsim understands of Catholic baptism is in error.

At what point in Catholic proceedings is one born again?

The case is that the Protestant teaching of OSAS is completely in error and the truth is veiled from Protestants. Unless you choose to seek the truth you will not find it.

As I say, the dicussion is on whether Roman Catholicism teaches works. And the problems that go with that. An uncondtionally loving God that removes his love under certain conditions is an oxymoron .. for example.

Believing something is or is not the case making it the case is the same argument atheists propose for the existence of God, is it not. "Because we believe in God does not make it so" is their argument.

And they are right. I don't believe God exists. I know he does

The Church is not silent. One "gets into Christ" through Baptism which brings Grace through which we are saved.

We may lose this grace through our rejection of God through sin and that is our choice.

We may regain grace through confession, repentance and penance and that too is our choice.

Through have grace and faith and the Holy Spirit other things happen for the good and that can increase our grace.

I was referring to eg: Slav's position which held a) Roman Catholicism doesn't teach works required b) How salvation wrought it is mystery.

If his position is true then the church is silent. You say his position isn't true - which is something you should take up with him

Applying a Protestant definition of works to what a Catholic believes or understands is not going to work because the Protestant definition is heretical to a Catholic.

We are saved by Grace which is freely give. We may lose it through our own action or inaction and we may regain it by asking for forgiveness with a sincere and contrite heart. We may gain more by doing good and not evil but that is up to God.

If you don't consider something "you do/don't do in order to gain/retain salvation" a work then that is your affair. You might not consider something that has 4 legs, a wagging tail going woof-woof a dog either. That too is your affair.

The rest of the world understands action/inaction to be work.

In the parable the Father is an analogy for God.

are you saying OGAG and applying this to yourself?

I'm saying that the father in the parable is God and the son in the parable is a child of God's. No matter how far a child of God strays, God remains their father.

I don't think it's safe to say that children of God will be in hell. So how do you resolve the dilemma?

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

No.

I'm applying God's logic to God. Not even God can make an object too heavy for him to lift. Not even God can make a single sided coin.

Logically there is no problem with a camel going through the eye of a needl, nor a cow jumping over the moon.

You are saying that you understand Gods logic and that God cannot do the impossible aren't you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll leave aside the conclusion we should draw from the rich mans sadness on hearing this news. For this discussion isn't about whether the Bible teaches a works salvation, it's about whether Roman Catholicism teaches (or is understood to teach) works-required-for-salvation.

Ok then. Roman Catholicism teaches a grace-required salvation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you elaborate? How does martyrdom guarantee salvation?

That would be up to God but Christ did speak about laying down your life for your fellow man and doing not our will but Gods will.
Reviewing the life of St. Kolbe may help.

You are still seeking a guarantee of salvation. It cannot be guaranteed by our actions for that would be selfish. It is through Grace and Gods infinite mercy.
We can only guarantee the loss of our salvation by rejecting God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is 'mysteriously' applied (Slav) or is a function (in part or in whole) of the work we do (yourself it would seem).

There is mystery surrounding it yes. If you want a spirituality or religion or faith devoid of mystery then Christianity is not for you.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying that the father in the parable is God and the son in the parable is a child of God's. No matter how far a child of God strays, God remains their father.

I don't think it's safe to say that children of God will be in hell. So how do you resolve the dilemma?

There is no dilemma. Those who go to hell choose it them selves. God does not send them, He grants them what they want, demonstrated by their willingness to remain in sin and refuse to seek forgiveness and do penance in this life for their sins.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

You are saying that you understand Gods logic and that God cannot do the impossible aren't you.

I'm saying that God cannot do the illogical. The illogical and the impossible are two different categories of things.

Ok then. Roman Catholicism teaches a grace-required salvation.

And the works element - without which you seemingly perish?

That would be up to God but Christ did speak about laying down your life for your fellow man and doing not our will but Gods will.

He did. But he didn't say it would guarentee salvation that I'm aware of. Could you elaborate in a substantive way on guarenteed salvation?

Reviewing the life of St. Kolbe may help.

I'm afraid I take my doctrine from scripture only. In so far as you do too we can discuss further in this.

You are still seeking a guarantee of salvation. It cannot be guaranteed by our actions for that would be selfish. It is through Grace and Gods infinite mercy.

We can only guarantee the loss of our salvation by rejecting God.

I understand that Roman Catholicism doesn't teach guarenteed salvation. No matter: in so far that they teach works-involved-in-any-way you have a works-based salvation.

A lotto ticket doesn't guarantee winning the lotto. But without it you can't win the lotto. If you do win the lotto then it will be in part by what you do - your work in buying the lotto ticket

There is mystery surrounding it yes. If you want a spirituality or religion or faith devoid of mystery then Christianity is not for you.

The mystery involves Slavs view and is impenetrable in regard to salvation. Not so with yours: you must work or else negatively influence your being saved.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is no dilemma. Those who go to hell choose it them selves. God does not send them, He grants them what they want, demonstrated by their willingness to remain in sin and refuse to seek forgiveness and do penance in this life for their sins.

Their sin (work) condemned them. Their failure to seek forgiveness for sin (work) condemned them. Their failure to do (doing= work) penance condemned them.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the works flow from grace and grace from God then the works aren't yours - their God's through you.

the penny is teetering on the edge, or maybe one penny of many is dropping

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you can prevent the works flowing then the fact works flow relies upon your permission. In which case we have a mainline works salvation - no buts about it.

if you prevent the works flowing you are rejecting God and salvation is not guaranteed and Hell is a distinct possibility. No buts there at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've not suggested salvation is by works alone (indeed it is clear that it cannot be by works alone). Any element of "your work is involved" makes it the salvation a works-salvation, for the purposes of discussion.

Does it? You are making the definition to suit. The question is does Catholicism teach a work-salvation.
Answer, no it teaches a grace salvation encompassing faith and merit that stem from grace and that we can lose grace through our own fault and hence risk losing salvation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Baptism is a work carried out by another on your behalf so technically it too is work. But we can leave aside special cases and concentrate on the great unwashed.

Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit, not man.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I correct in assuming the most loving, self-sacrificial thing you could do for your baby is murder it? Agape love at work?

No you would not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

After you get around to answering my question regarding same perhaps. Works a cause of salvation or a consequence of salvation. Matthew 25 doesn't say..

Works a consequence of grace.
salvation a consequence of grace.
Grace a consequence of Gods gift, freely given.

antiskeptic wrote: »

OSAS do believe there are consequences of sinning both in this life and in the hereafter. It's just that those consequences don't include loss of salvation.

So you believe you can continue in whatever sin it is even doing things to children you will escape the millstone or the lake of fire? You and sin as much as you want as deprave as you want, never repent, and still see God eventually?

If loss of salvation is not a consequence then what other consequence is there. the only consequence of any import is loss of salvation, loss of heaven, loss of God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I to take this to mean that the only motivation you can concieve of for rejecting sin is the threat of eternal hell? OSAS knows that sin won't produce hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for sinning.

No, the motivation is to do Gods will. Sinning is not Gods will. Turning our back on sin and Satan is.

How can OSAS know that sin will not lead to Hell? There is no scriptural support and it is unbiblical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Re-read it. The quotes marks and comparitive language mean I'm paraphrasing the Roman Catholic position.

and creating a fictitious position

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't believe I can lose my salvation. 0% chance.

Prove it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God's love is unconditional it can't be removed under any condition. Do you know what unconditional means?

God loves all sinners, even those in Hell. The thing about those in Hell is that they hate God and you cannot have love and hate in the same place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

At what point in Catholic proceedings is one born again?

Baptism

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, the dicussion is on whether Roman Catholicism teaches works. And the problems that go with that. An uncondtionally loving God that removes his love under certain conditions is an oxymoron .. for example.

Roman Catholicism, teaches that good works are a good thing and extend from grace.

God never removes his love. It is we that choose hate over love and it is this hatred that removes us from God and leads to the place where hatred is perfect.

If there is any hatred at all in our hearts and that includes Hitler, Islamic fundamentalists, Popes, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists, pedophiles you name it, if we hate a person we are at sever risk of Hell. We hate the sin, not the sinner for the sin comes from Satan but the person comes from God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was referring to eg: Slav's position which held a) Roman Catholicism doesn't teach works required b) How salvation wrought it is mystery.

If his position is true then the church is silent. You say his position isn't true - which is something you should take up with him

You presented it. If you feel Slav will benefit from my understanding feel free to advise him of it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you don't consider something "you do/don't do in order to gain/retain salvation" a work then that is your affair. You might not consider something that has 4 legs, a wagging tail going woof-woof a dog either. That too is your affair.

Could also be a cow with a cough or an elephant with a stuffed trunk.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The rest of the world understands action/inaction to be work.

That would be physics. I understood we were speaking theologically and spiritually and the relationship between work and salvation.

If the rest of the world disagrees that is their problem. We (Roman Catholics) bend to the will of God, not the will of man or the world.

There is a Trinity of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

There is a trinity of grace, faith and merit where both faith and merit (good works) are a consequence of grace.

A child may die never knowing faith or being capable of works. A handicapped person may die never being capable of works or faith. Should they be denied heaven?

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying that God cannot do the illogical. The illogical and the impossible are two different categories of things.

Says who? God? I haven't heard that it is not Biblical. The illogical is the impossible and God is capable of the impossible therefore also the illogical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the works element - without which you seemingly perish?

That's up to us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He did. But he didn't say it would guarentee salvation that I'm aware of. Could you elaborate in a substantive way on guarenteed salvation?

I cannot as I am not OSAS. You can and feel free.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I understand that Roman Catholicism doesn't teach guarenteed salvation. No matter: in so far that they teach works-involved-in-any-way you have a works-based salvation.

You are creating a straw man.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A lotto ticket doesn't guarantee winning the lotto. But without it you can't win the lotto. If you do win the lotto then it will be in part by what you do - your work in buying the lotto ticket

You can also buy a lottery ticket and give it away.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The mystery involves Slavs view and is impenetrable in regard to salvation. Not so with yours: you must work or else negatively influence your being saved.

No - you must do the will of God. Difference.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Says who? God? I haven't heard that it is not Biblical. The illogical is the impossible and God is capable of the impossible therefore also the illogical.

So you think God can create an object too heavy for him to lift?

That's up to us.

I'm not saying it isn't. Indeed, the nature of a work is that it's up to you.

I cannot as I am not OSAS.

You seemed to think guarenteed salvation was a possibility here:

S.R. earlier wrote:

If you want guaranteed salvation it is clear the way is that of Jesus, the Saints or martyrdom.

..and I was querying you on it. Are you now saying that there isn't a way to guarenteed salvation?

You are creating a straw man.

I'm dealing with someone who says works are involved with salvation. What's straw about that?

You can also buy a lottery ticket and give it away.

...by what you do and fail to do. Work thus.

No - you must do the will of God. Difference.

We're not concerning ourselves here with the nature of the work. We're just interested in whether work is required.

Doing is working. Unless you can explain how it isn't

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

the penny is teetering on the edge, or maybe one penny of many is dropping

if you prevent the works flowing you are rejecting God and salvation is not guaranteed and Hell is a distinct possibility. No buts there at all.

Work. Whether the road is dug by you putting your back into it or letting another put their back into it is neither here nor there. Part of the credit goes to you for the work done.

Does it?

It does. Clearly there is nothing you can do to get to heaven no matter how hard you work: you are always reliant on God to convert your work into resurrected life and so he is always a part of your salvation. The issue here isn't what God does, it's what you do.

And if in any way reliant on what you do then it's a work-salvation.

The question is does Catholicism teach a work-salvation.
Answer, no it teaches a grace salvation encompassing faith and merit that stem from grace and that we can lose grace through our own fault and hence risk losing salvation.

Thus work according to the definition of a work-salvation. Reliant on what you do or don't do.

Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit, not man.

Yes, but unless man chooses to apply it, it doesn't get done. The Holy Spirit might be the bullet, but man pulls the trigger.

Unless you believe in predestination

No you would not.

?? A child murdered is guaranteed heaven? No?

Guaranteed to spend eternity with God? No?

You as a murderer might perish in Hell. But then again, "greater love hate no man".

Could you elaborate on your denying the seeming obvious - rather than skip past the point here?

Works a consequence of grace.
salvation a consequence of grace.
Grace a consequence of Gods gift, freely given.

Without a mention of this "not-refusing-grace" bit unfortunately. Which permits other readings.

So you believe you can continue in whatever sin it is even doing things to children you will escape the millstone or the lake of fire? You and sin as much as you want as deprave as you want, never repent, and still see God eventually?

Of course! On the same day I draw my final breath.

There would be fly in ointment were I to attempt to follow your scenario however. The Holy Spirit lives within - in an ever-so-slightly different way than is supposed to happen during RC infant baptism. And He would take a dim view of my abandoning myself to sin (what with my body being a Temple of his) and so I could expect "God disciplines those he loves" to come into effect pretty darn swifly.

This could take various forms - up to an including sickness and death. OSAS might give some theoretical licence to sin. But it's only a theoretical one.

If loss of salvation is not a consequence then what other consequence is there. the only consequence of any import is loss of salvation, loss of heaven, loss of God.

Is fear of being thrown out of the family home the only motivation for not spitting in my mothers face? Or might the fact that I love her and what she's sacrificed for me (out of love for me) be a more likely explanation.

God sacrificed a lot for me. All he had in fact. When you're that loved - that irrevocably loved - it does attach no small measure of constraint onto you.

No, the motivation is to do Gods will.

Thought experiement: if you knew now that you would be cast into Hell come judgement, would you still be motivated to do God's will and why.

How can OSAS know that sin will not lead to Hell? There is no scriptural support and it is unbiblical.

Sin does lead to Hell - of that there can be no doubt. But it has to be found on your charge sheet in order that you be judged for it. Whereas all my sin is to be found on Christ. Me? I clothed in the righteousness of Christ as far as the Father is concerned.

Which opens up a real mind bender. If Christ bears all my sin: past, present and future then my not sinning tomorrow will mean fractionally less suffering for him. He won't be punished in my place for a sin I don't commit.

How about that for potential motivation not to sin.

Prove it.

"Nothing can separate me from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus". I'm not inclined to add to scripture by supposing I can leap out of his hand

"There is now therefore, no condemnation for those that are in Christ".

This "in Christ-ness" is majored on. There isn't a mention of getting out of Christ again. Like the IRA it seems: once in never out.

God loves all sinners, even those in Hell. The thing about those in Hell is that they hate God and you cannot have love and hate in the same place.

God loves those in Hell. God punished in a lake of fire those whom he loves. God abandons those he loves to an eternal existance of agony and anguish. He leaves without hope and without any chance of future redemption, those whom he loves. "The smoke of their torment might rise forever and ever". But God loves them in ensuring that smoke does right.

Could you suggest a Bible verse that goes a way to supporting this bewildering notion. I'm asking you to leave aside the claim that God can do the illogical here...

Roman Catholicism, teaches that good works are a good thing and extend from grace.

So I understand. So long as you grant permission for the grace to flow - rendering your potential salvation dependent in part on you

A work.

God never removes his love. It is we that choose hate over love and it is this hatred that removes us from God and leads to the place where hatred is perfect.

Except for God's love (according to your point above). Or perhaps you mean God loves those in Hell from afar.

If there is any hatred at all in our hearts and that includes Hitler, Islamic fundamentalists, Popes, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, atheists, pedophiles you name it, if we hate a person we are at sever risk of Hell. We hate the sin, not the sinner for the sin comes from Satan but the person comes from God.

I understand the distinction and I agree with it. However, in the context of our current discussion we've got a work. Salvation someway influenced (but no guarantees) by what you do/don't do

There is a trinity of grace, faith and merit where both faith and merit (good works) are a consequence of grace.

All you need to do now is ensure you don't turn off the flow. And you might be saved (but no guarantees - understood).

Works

A child may die never knowing faith or being capable of works. A handicapped person may die never being capable of works or faith. Should they be denied heaven?

Given an illogical God? Why not?

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Their sin (work) condemned them. Their failure to seek forgiveness for sin (work) condemned them. Their failure to do (doing= work) penance condemned them.

Sin is bad work. Only good work gains merit. Penance offsets the debt of sin

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you think God can create an object too heavy for him to lift?

If that is impossible then for God it is possible.

antiskeptic wrote: »

..and I was querying you on it. Are you now saying that there isn't a way to guarenteed salvation?

To answer that requires making a judgement on the saints and martyrs. As we understand it the Saints and Martyrs are in heaven therefore their salvation has been guaranteed.
For someone considering being a saint or a martyr it will be different.

You see no one sets out the be a saint or a martyr - it is what they are called to. It is up to them to accept or reject the calling.

antiskeptic wrote: »

...by what you do and fail to do. Work thus.

Not doing is not work. However you seem to have a strict definition of "work" which is a stumbling block.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're not concerning ourselves here with the nature of the work. We're just interested in whether work is required.

What is required is grace from which comes faith and works.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Doing is working. Unless you can explain how it isn't

As an example - praying. It is good and has merit and it is a "doing" but it is not "a work" as such.
If you pray for something and it happens it is not the prayer or you that does it. The Holy Spirit does it.
And if you did not do it the Holy Spirit may do it anyway for any reason including the prayers of another.

Any "works" done must be selfless and from the heart. If they are done for the purposes of salvation they are selfish and may be worthless.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Work. Whether the road is dug by you putting your back into it or letting another put their back into it is neither here nor there. Part of the credit goes to you for the work done.

If the work done is good and can gain merit you get credits. Work is not all that is required though.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It does. Clearly there is nothing you can do to get to heaven no matter how hard you work: you are always reliant on God to convert your work into resurrected life and so he is always a part of your salvation. The issue here isn't what God does, it's what you do.

And if in any way reliant on what you do then it's a work-salvation.

So you define putting oneself at Gods mercy is work.
The thing is once you put yourself at Gods mercy God decides what work you must do. For there on out you accept or reject what God asks of you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thus work according to the definition of a work-salvation. Reliant on what you do or don't do.

Catholicism does not define a work-salvation. This definition is a Protestant man-made creation and as such has no merit.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes, but unless man chooses to apply it, it doesn't get done. The Holy Spirit might be the bullet, but man pulls the trigger.

But man can decide not to pull the trigger and deny the Holy Spirit.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unless you believe in predestination

OSAS is predestination so no I don't

antiskeptic wrote: »

Without a mention of this "not-refusing-grace" bit unfortunately. Which permits other readings.

What is the result of refusing a gift freely given?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course! On the same day I draw my final breath.

There would be fly in ointment were I to attempt to follow your scenario however. The Holy Spirit lives within - in an ever-so-slightly different way than is supposed to happen during RC infant baptism. And He would take a dim view of my abandoning myself to sin (what with my body being a Temple of his) and so I could expect "God disciplines those he loves" to come into effect pretty darn swifly.

This could take various forms - up to an including sickness and death. OSAS might give some theoretical licence to sin. But it's only a theoretical one.

All theories should be tested should they not? There are probably quite a few who do exercise this licence.
From a Catholic perspective the Holy Spirit acts and lives within all regardless of race creed or colour. In the baptised grace is present initially along with the Holy Spirit.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is fear of being thrown out of the family home the only motivation for not spitting in my mothers face? Or might the fact that I love her and what she's sacrificed for me (out of love for me) be a more likely explanation.

God sacrificed a lot for me. All he had in fact. When you're that loved - that irrevocably loved - it does attach no small measure of constraint onto you.

It attaches more than constraint. We owe Christ a debt for the payment He made for our sins. That debt is forgiven when we admit our sins, repent and do penance.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thought experiement: if you knew now that you would be cast into Hell come judgement, would you still be motivated to do God's will and why.

Interesting question. Suggest you open a new thread to explore.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sin does lead to Hell - of that there can be no doubt. But it has to be found on your charge sheet in order that you be judged for it. Whereas all my sin is to be found on Christ. Me? I clothed in the righteousness of Christ as far as the Father is concerned.

Which opens up a real mind bender. If Christ bears all my sin: past, present and future then my not sinning tomorrow will mean fractionally less suffering for him. He won't be punished in my place for a sin I don't commit.

How about that for potential motivation not to sin.

Each sin you commit, past, present and future, caused the pain and wounds inflicted on Christ during His trial and crucifixion. That sin still exists on you charge sheet along with a balance for the debt. Each sin forgiven is no longer considered on the balance. The question is at death how much unpaid sin remains.

Take for example a child who is baptised and on leaving the Church is killed - it doesn't matter how - if that child had lived and grown to be an adult they would have sinned. They might also ask forgiveness and be forgiven. However they never got the chance but Christ has already suffered for the pains their sins might have caused. By dying in a state of grace they go straight to heaven.

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Nothing can separate me from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus". I'm not inclined to add to scripture by supposing I can leap out of his hand

"There is now therefore, no condemnation for those that are in Christ".

Totally out of context. If you read the entire passage you will find no support for your position.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God loves those in Hell. God punished in a lake of fire those whom he loves. God abandons those he loves to an eternal existance of agony and anguish. He leaves without hope and without any chance of future redemption, those whom he loves. "The smoke of their torment might rise forever and ever". But God loves them in ensuring that smoke does right.

Could you suggest a Bible verse that goes a way to supporting this bewildering notion. I'm asking you to leave aside the claim that God can do the illogical here...

God loves us all unconditionally but He does not send anyone to hell out of hate. Hell is for those who deserve it and choose it.
As for scriptural support - Jesus loves the sinner and wishes all sinners to come to Him for forgiveness. Jesus wants us to hate the sin and give it up and a repent. Those that love the sin more than Jesus choose Hell. Jesus still loves the sinner and would they repent but if Hell is what they want Jesus cannot force them to change their minds.
Jesus also says that there are those he never knew and they also went (or go) to hell. How have Jesus love someone He never knew?
Those who go to Hell put themselves there in spite of Gods unconditional love.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So I understand. So long as you grant permission for the grace to flow - rendering your potential salvation dependent in part on you

A work.

So your definition of work now includes merely allowing something to happen.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

?? A child murdered is guaranteed heaven? No?

Guaranteed to spend eternity with God? No?

You as a murderer might perish in Hell. But then again, "greater love hate no man".

Could you elaborate on your denying the seeming obvious - rather than skip past the point here?

I am bewildered as to how you got from my saying that if a child should die immediately or soon after baptism they would go straight to heaven to you suggesting child murder is good, me saying it's not, and then saying I am denying the obvious and skipping a point - you made an assumption that made an ass of yourself.



In regards to the above - is a child murdered guaranteed heaven and spend eternity with God? Initially no, there is no guarantee. Less so if a lynch mob gets to them first, but if they sincerely repent for example Alessandro Serenelli, the answer is yes it is possible.

One could ask if Hitler was a member of a denomination that held to osas would he be in heaven. One could equally ask then if regardless of that if Hitler at somepoint in his life had both grace and faith and was "born again" and therefore by default osas then he must be in heaven.
I don;t think we know enough about Hitler to answer this one way or another but the concept alone is interesting if we apply it to someone who was or is actually osas and then subsequently started a race or creed hating Reich. Maybe it could happen in the future.

antiskeptic, it is probably about time you started reading the Catholic Catechism if you really want answers about Catholicism and what it teaches. Every answer provided here is twisted by you to try to trip us up over works or whatever and really smacks of the work of some spirit that is out to get Catholicism.

lmaopml

I have to say, I was trying to understand the concept of osas, and you know, if there was anything more to just 'I believe therefore I am saved...'...which seems odd in relation to the full extent of biblical teaching and 'everything' the Lord said - when, if it were true, he could have condensed it, and the bible could have been like an A4 page or something...

..but, according to antiskeptic nope, I'm seeing and reading 'any' effort means your 'working' your salvation ....by those standards, even reading the bible could be considered 'work'...

I dunno..*scratches head*

...It seems this particular view from some of our Christian brothers and sisters is always going to collide with a free will notion of our being. It makes more sense to me from a Calvinist viewpoint...

There is a drastic misunderstanding of freewill philosophy and the merit this begs...

..also, the 'nature' of this merit...

*Bangs head on laptop*

StealthRolex

antiskeptic posting on this board is also work - maybe he thinks that his attempts to convince is of his heresy (as we would see it) will gain him additional merit.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

If the work done is good and can gain merit you get credits. Work is not all that is required though.

No matter. It is required.

So you define putting oneself at Gods mercy is work.

No. But...

The thing is once you put yourself at Gods mercy God decides what work you must do. For there on out you accept or reject what God asks of you.

... if not doing what is required of you assists in your damnation then we can say that doing what is required of you assists in your salvation.

Work-salvation thus.

Catholicism does not define a work-salvation. This definition is a Protestant man-made creation and as such has no merit.

The definition doesn't belong to anybody: if work assists in your salvation then it's a work-assisted-salvation.

But man can decide not to pull the trigger and deny the Holy Spirit.

Meaning baptism isn't just a "work of the Holy Spirit", it's a work of the Holy Spirit and man.

Although I'm not sure baptism has any relevance to this topic - unless you hold that baptism too plays a part in whether you are eventually saved or damned

What is the result of refusing a gift freely given?

You don't get the gift. but that's beside the point. The point is that Matthew 25 doesn't mention refusing the gift: it merely points out that those who are saved worked.

That correlation (the saved worked) may be causal (works influenced salvation). It may not be causal. The passage doesn't say causal, so you cannot presume a casual correlation.

All theories should be tested should they not? There are probably quite a few who do exercise this licence.

Probably. And probably they experience the discipline of God. Unto the sickness and death described by Paul.

From a Catholic perspective the Holy Spirit acts and lives within all regardless of race creed or colour. In the baptised grace is present initially along with the Holy Spirit.

From my perspective the Holy Spirit lives only in the saved.

It attaches more than constraint. We owe Christ a debt for the payment He made for our sins. That debt is forgiven when we admit our sins, repent and do penance.

The word "constraint" in this context merely means a "that which restrains you from sinning". You use the word debt. I use the word love.

Both are constraints.

Interesting question. Suggest you open a new thread to explore.

Done..

Each sin you commit, past, present and future, caused the pain and wounds inflicted on Christ during His trial and crucifixion.

...agreed. Which means that if I choose not to sin tomorrow, Christ suffered less..

That sin still exists on you charge sheet along with a balance for the debt. Each sin forgiven is no longer considered on the balance. The question is at death how much unpaid sin remains.

Take for example a child who is baptised and on leaving the Church is killed - it doesn't matter how - if that child had lived and grown to be an adult they would have sinned. They might also ask forgiveness and be forgiven. However they never got the chance but Christ has already suffered for the pains their sins might have caused. By dying in a state of grace they go straight to heaven.

Gotcha on basic accounting gig - much like my view except that all sin has been forgiven.

Totally out of context. If you read the entire passage you will find no support for your position.

It was half hearted - granted.

I don't think our positions lend themselves to supplying "proofs" to each other. The topic is being kept reasonably simple: works required or no. Best leave the biblical interpretation to one side huh?

God loves us all unconditionally but He does not send anyone to hell out of hate. Hell is for those who deserve it and choose it...

God sends them to Hell for not doing what he asks them to do. Which is plain works. And utterly conditional.

As for scriptural support - Jesus loves the sinner and wishes all sinners to come to Him for forgiveness. Jesus wants us to hate the sin and give it up and a repent. Those that love the sin more than Jesus choose Hell. Jesus still loves the sinner and would they repent but if Hell is what they want Jesus cannot force them to change their minds.
Jesus also says that there are those he never knew and they also went (or go) to hell. How have Jesus love someone He never knew?
Those who go to Hell put themselves there in spite of Gods unconditional love.

The scriptural support I was seeking had to do with supporting your suggestion that:

God loves all sinners, even those in Hell.

So your definition of work now includes merely allowing something to happen.

If man assists in anyway in obtaining his salvation then that is a work.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I have to say, I was trying to understand the concept of osas, and you know, if there was anything more to just 'I believe therefore I am saved...'...which seems odd in relation to the full extent of biblical teaching and 'everything' the Lord said - when, if it were true, he could have condensed it, and the bible could have been like an A4 page or something...

Just because you are "surely saved" doesn't mean work needn't be done. And because work need be done you need a Bible to explain what, how and why. The only difference is the outcome of the work: in your case it may contribute towards salvation. In my case not.

..but, according to antiskeptic nope, I'm seeing and reading 'any' effort means your 'working' your salvation ....by those standards, even reading the bible could be considered 'work'...

I dunno..*scratches head*

Not any effort. Just any effort that can contribute to your being saved.

...It seems this particular view from some of our Christian brothers and sisters is always going to collide with a free will notion of our being. It makes more sense to me from a Calvinist viewpoint...

There need be no conflict between freewill and OSAS. Freewill would be that which was involved in getting you saved in the first place. That the nature of that salvation is OSAS doesn't mean you can't express freewill after the moment you were saved.

I can freely choose to sin or not sin. There is no need for me to freely choose again to be saved - given that I'd have done that already.

This isn't the Lisbon Treaty: God heard my answer already, there is no need to revisit my decision.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic - I just found the ignore button.

I cannot ignore Christ or the Holy Spirit but I am free to ignore you.

For those who are not aware of it click on the users name, select the last option and then click yes.

In the meantime the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic Catechism and Douay-Rheims Bible are all online along with untold Catholic Apologetics websites and discussion fora.

StealthRolex

This view of salvation is a crucial issue because it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches that we are not saved by faith alone. The Church has taught this since 30 A.D. as part of the Divine Revelation. The truth of the Catholic Church's teaching can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture alone.

All who claim the title "Christian" will be able to agree on the following two truths: salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). These biblical facts will be our foundation as we explain the teaching of the Catholic Church.

If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). The epistle of James only mentions it in the negative sense.

Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.

Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.

The Catholic Church has never taught we "earn" our salvation. It is an inheritance (Galatians 5:21), freely given to anyone who becomes a child of God (1 John 3:1), so long as they remain that way (John 15:1-11). You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).

The reformer's position cannot be reconciled with the Bible. That is why the Catholic Church has taught otherwise for over 1,960 years.

Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."

there will be more but for this one here is the source

lmaopml

Hi Antiskeptic,

..but what you are 'actually' describing is a point in time when you accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour! You 'admit' that there is some 'effort' required but not that it 'contributes' to your saving...So you 'work' too...

Works based salvation; it 'has' to be [ see how it feels..] He 'reads' the bible, it has to be a work....

If you make 'no effort'....and believe by saying that you are 'saved' that it is so..even if you sin relentlessly afterwards, and go as far as rejecting God, which you seem to believe - It really just sums up to saying 'I believe'...!

Is that what Jesus went to all that trouble for? Really? ...and gave us such a huge gift and the dignity of freewill too? It doesn't mesh with either the philosophy of free will or the full context of Jesus teachings...He wants us to call others home too...to let him 'work' in us...

...our 'merit' is abiding, through our free will, in participating in 'his' work...We receive more 'Grace'...to be 'saved'.....Gosh..

We are saved by 'grace'...