Does Roman Catholicism teach a work-salvation?

antiskeptic

Rather than take a topic off-topic.

lmaopml wrote: »

..to my mind the Catholic Church does 'not' teach a 'works' based salvation. The Catholic church teaches that our salvation comes from the Grace of Jesus Christ, but we have to 'work' or choose it freely and continually dwell with grace and not sin, and it should show in our countenance and deeds...In other words 'Faith without it 'showing' is dead faith'...

This is a works-based salvation: your salvation is a function of/dependent upon your working, your effort, your struggling against sin. If you don't do the work set before you, you don't get the salvation.

There is no material difference between someone who works and is given a wage at the end of the day and someone who has a wage packet stuffed in their pocket in the morning that they must work for in order to retain at the end of the day.

In the spirit of genuine curiosity I would really like to know why you believe this? and are you taught it in school or something, because it's certainly propogated alot which I find very odd???

I'd see myself as non-denominatal and was raised in nominal Catholicism. The view if formed by the realisation that if our salvation depends in any way upon our effort then it cannot be by grace. And a salvation by partial grace by God + partial work by us is a works salvation.

Are you yourself osas?

Indeed. Salvation by grace only permits no other - bonkers as the mere notion might sound.

Although I am not a Calvinist

lmaopml

Antiskeptic, do 'osas' believe that sin seperates us from Grace? or that one can fall from Grace?.....I don't fully understand the thought processes but am interested to know I guess....Is it a once off choice and thereafter the person plays a passive inactive role?

My salvation is only dependant on God and grace through Jesus Christ, this is what Catholics are 'taught' not that we can work our way to salvation! My 'faith' has to show itself in my countenance to be true faith...That's what the Church teaches. If I 'choose' to do good it's because I have given myself over to Christ and allowed him to take over my will, but I can, and must admit often do fall short, and have to reconcile myself fully to his will...This is the 'choosing' part...Is it 'this' 'choice' that you see, the 'free will' end of accepting Christ as the 'work'???

If the Church taught one could be a good person and this alone will save you, then it would be 'working' our way to God; but no, primarily every ounce of our salvation is only because of Christ himself making it possible. Our salvation is only possible through faith in Christ.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Antiskeptic, do 'osas' believe that sin seperates us from Grace? or that one can fall from Grace?.....I don't fully understand the thought processes but am interested to know I guess....Is it a once off choice and thereafter the person plays a passive inactive roll?

My view would be that nothing can separate me from God - in the sense of losing my salvation. I can (and do) offend God with my sin and that does result in greater distance/less intimacy between me and God.

As far as salvation goes, it's a once off deal: once found I cannot be lost again.

There are various 'Protestant' views about how this happens: the Calvinists say that God choose which men to save without those men having anything at all to do with his choice. The Arminians (to which most denominations would hold in some way I suspect) say that God makes it possible for a person to choose God. I gather they reckon you can loose your salvation - but only by a complete turning away and rejection of Christ - so it's not quite as works-based as Roman Catholicism.

Me? I don't think men can choose actively for God/salvation - but do think men can make a passive once-off choice. And so the biblical exclusions: not by willing it, not by working for it are accomodated.

As far as working after my salvation? It's very active (not in the sense that I work hard but that the work is deliberate and conscious). The reason I work isn't, of course, to retain my salvation. It's to honour and please God and thank God. There is also some self-interest here: the indications are is that there is greater and lesser in the Kingdom of God and I suspect that in the measure you give God your heart here, the closer you'll get to God there.

In it's best moments, it's a healthy self-interestedness.

My salvation is only dependant on God and grace through Jesus Christ, this is what Catholics are 'taught' not that we can work our way to salvation! My 'faith' has to show itself in my countenance to be true faith...That's what the Church teaches.

So what do we say to the Roman Catholic who isn't showing their faith in their countenance - in the light of a teaching that says they "have to"? Doesn't a "have to" imply an "or else"?

If I 'choose' to do good it's because I have given myself over to Christ and allowed him to take over my will, but I can and must admit often do fall short and have to reconcile myself fully to his will...This is the 'choosing' part...Is it 'this' 'choice' that you see, the 'free will' end of accepting Christ as the 'work'???

An "or else.." compromises the choosing. Perhaps not for you: you could choose to please and honour your husband (say) whether someone holds a gun up to your head or not. But "you" aren't every Roman Catholic: there are many there without love for God who think their works and confession etc will make a difference. Roman Catholic teaching can't divide between the legalist and the person who genuinely loves God. And it's those legalists who are in grave danger. A danger accentuated by a teaching which introduces things we must do or else .. into the mix.


Would agree that the free-est choice of all would be one made without any threat of consequences if the choice isn't made. Would you agree that the value to God of the free-est of choices exceeds that of a choice made with the threat of consequences (however background)

If the Church taught one could be a good person and this alone will save you, then it would be 'working' our way to God; but no, primarily every ounce of our salvation is only because of Christ himself making it possible. Our salvation is only possible through faith in Christ.

Grace + Works is, as I say, but a variation of a works salvation. If there are things that you must do which, on failing to do, results in your damnation then a works salvation it can only be.

Slav

As far as I understand it Roman Catholicism does not teach a work-salvation nor does it teach a sola fide type salvation. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the question ever arose within the RCC; rather it was a challenge from Reformation that made Catholics to start thinking in the lines of works vs faith. The authentic Catholic understanding is that salvation is Mystery and therefore it's pointless (unless discussing it with Protestants) to even question whether it's by works or by faith. It's by God, full stop here. From Scripture they know the importance of both faith and works and they values both but are not trying to separate them or make them (or any of them) a pre-condition for our salvation.

However I also believe that certain Catholic practices in medieval times put too much emphasis on works. It led to development of questionable doctrines (like the treasury of merit, indulgences, etc) which Reformation strongly objected. With the growing tendency to describe things like sin or salvation in legal terms it made it possible to finally formulate the question like we know it now. So in some way RCC reaps exactly what has been sown.

antiskeptic

Slav wrote: »

As far as I understand it Roman Catholicism does not teach a work-salvation nor does it teach a sola fide type salvation. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the question ever arose within the RCC; rather it was a challenge from Reformation that made Catholics to start thinking in the lines of works vs faith. The authentic Catholic understanding is that salvation is Mystery and therefore it's pointless (unless discussing it with Protestants) to even question whether it's by works or by faith. It's by God, full stop here. From Scripture they know the importance of both faith and works and they values both but are not trying to separate them or make them (or any of them) a pre-condition for our salvation.

If not making them a pre-condition of salvation then why are certain works-issues preconditions to salvation, eg: that a person not have mortal sin on their account at death.

Wiki wrote:

The Roman Catholic teaching on mortal sin was called into question by some within the Church in the late 20th century after the Second Vatican Council. In response to these doubts, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the basic teaching in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. It is also maintained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: "Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

My view would be that nothing can separate me from God - in the sense of losing my salvation. I can (and do) offend God with my sin and that does result in greater distance/less intimacy between me and God.

As far as salvation goes, it's a once off deal: once found I cannot be lost again.

Hi Antiskeptic, and cheers for being so concise! I'm pretty new to some of the 'lingo' so forgive me, but I'm trying to really just understand various outlooks...

May I just say, the way I see this view is that Christians who believe in osas also believe in 'sin' and 'sin' seperates us from God....but in a 'distance' way?

There are so many sins, is there anything you can do that would seperate you from God? or were you never saved in the first place if you went out and chose to reject the Gospel thereafter, even if you believed you were saved beforehand?

....so, in effect, being 'saved' is not really a guarantee once off thing, it has fluidity and doesn't 'happen' until Jesus calls us home.... you still have the free will to reject God, even though at one point you thought you were 'saved'???.....So being 'saved' has a time frame as such? Hope that makes sense

There are various 'Protestant' views about how this happens: the Calvinists say that God choose which men to save without those men having anything at all to do with his choice. The Arminians (to which most denominations would hold in some way I suspect) say that God makes it possible for a person to choose God. I gather they reckon you can loose your salvation - but only by a complete turning away and rejection of Christ - so it's not quite as works-based as Roman Catholicism.

Right, I knew there were a few different takes on salvation, freewill etc. within various protestant denominations...
Yes, Catholics believe that salvation doesn't happen until it 'happens' as such, we can and do chose to seperate ourselves from grace and return to it, we have to abide in it as such.....we have to remain in the Grace of God by not sinning, but something like yourself, that there are some sins more grave than others, for example sins against the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven. We look to the saints as examples of abiding in Grace...and we are taught that 'salvation' isn't the 'aim', it's love of God is the aim soley because he is God and embodies all goodness and mercy...

Me? I don't think men can choose actively for God/salvation - but do think men can make a passive once-off choice. And so the biblical exclusions: not by willing it, not by working for it are accomodated.

Right, with respect this is alien to me to reconcile as I believe fully in our free will and that it works throughout our life, and not just passively on one occasion..... we have the choice to actively 'choose' God, and actively 'reject' God, and even after rejecting God to come home again....So it's 'fluid' iykwim....Like the Prodigal son who was fully at home, left and was accepted back again...

As far as working after my salvation? It's very active (not in the sense that I work hard but that the work is deliberate and conscious). The reason I work isn't, of course, to retain my salvation. It's to honour and please God and thank God. There is also some self-interest here: the indications are is that there is greater and lesser in the Kingdom of God and I suspect that in the measure you give God your heart here, the closer you'll get to God there.

In it's best moments, it's a healthy self-interestedness.

Us too, we 'work' ( hate that word ), what it implies etc. When you mention 'work' it sounds arbitrary and useless, we say we 'abide' in God, we say we stay clear of sin, that's the 'work' iykwim, and it's a 'deliberate and conscious' act too, to allow God to abide in us...

So what do we say to the Roman Catholic who isn't showing their faith in their countenance - in the light of a teaching that says they "have to"? Doesn't a "have to" imply an "or else"?

Absolutely! There is always the alternative.....Like yourself, you can chose God and believe you are saved, but then all of a sudden sin and find out you weren't actually saved in the first place...

We're a soul in time, with the free will and dignity to chose to abide in Christ...

An "or else.." compromises the choosing. Perhaps not for you: you could choose to please and honour your husband (say) whether someone holds a gun up to your head or not. But "you" aren't every Roman Catholic: there are many there without love for God who think their works and confession etc will make a difference. Roman Catholic teaching can't divide between the legalist and the person who genuinely loves God. And it's those legalists who are in grave danger. A danger accentuated by a teaching which introduces things we must do or else .. into the mix.

I would grant that there are perhaps some who call themselves Catholic and believe that if they are 'good' then they have salvation, even if they don't have 'faith' - but this is most certainly not what the Church teaches - quite the opposit in fact!

Would agree that the free-est choice of all would be one made without any threat of consequences if the choice isn't made. Would you agree that the value to God of the free-est of choices exceeds that of a choice made with the threat of consequences (however background)

I think you could phrase it anyway you like , hell exists for people who don't put their faith in Jesus. I do know that we are taught to love God because he embodies all that is 'good', and we should fly towards the light always 'Jesus'...and want what is good because it's God's will for us...

Grace + Works is, as I say, but a variation of a works salvation. If there are things that you must do which, on failing to do, results in your damnation then a works salvation it can only be.

We are not to 'sin'. The same as yourself....that's the 'work', to choose Jesus and abide in him, and listen and learn from our Church as a faith guide and moral guide, and receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the sacraments to help us abide with Christ...

At least you understand that the Church doesn't teach a 'works' based salvation...it's 'faith' and 'perceverence in faith to avoid sin'....

I still don't see the humongous difference, other than you believe you're saved before salvation, and I don't believe I am saved until salvation iykwim....

It's quite confusing I must say, the 'lingo' sometimes gets in the way...

You do believe in free will though, right?

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

If not making them a pre-condition of salvation then why are certain works-issues preconditions to salvation, eg: that a person not have mortal sin on their account at death.

I think it's a fairly recent development that is not directly related to the salvation by works issue (unless we count going to confession as works). I also doubt that this is the understanding of the mortal sin held by the majority of Catholics. I guess if asked which one of two quotes from the same catechism bears more weight "those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell" or "there are no limits to the mercy of God" I guess the majority would vote for the later. Some of them would probably even explain how they don't contradict each other.

Even still, I don't know if there is any infallible (form the RCC perspective) source that clearly says that unrepented so-called mortal sin unavoidably leads to damnation.

lmaopml

Slav, as a Catholic lol...one of the 'some' you speak of I would defo say that Catholics leave the judgement end at the end of a persons life and when they are judged up to God above. We don't know whether they were 'really' repentent or no - only God knows!

Slav

Would it be correct then to say that your interpretation of "those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell" is that mortal sin something very dangerous and if not repented it can potentially lead to damnation (as we think) but by no means it's limiting God's mercy?

So if a person dies in a state of mortal sin there is still a hope they can be saved, right?

lmaopml

I would still say the same thing Slav. We can only observe others, we can't 'judge' them. That's entirely up to God above!

I do believe that some sins can be forgiven even after death....when God judges us perfectly!

Sorry I couldn't be of more help...

Slav

I mean in theory only, not making it personal in any way. If we know that our theoretical person died in state of mortal sin and did not repent, can we say that there is still a hope?

If it's impossible to talk about an abstract person, then we can make it personal and not judgemental at the same time. Which one of the following statements is true?

1) "I believe if I die in state of mortal sin I will definitely go to hell, no exceptions"

2) "I believe if I die in state of mortal sin I still have a hope (no matter how little) to be saved because God's mercy has no limits"

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Antiskeptic, and cheers for being so concise! I'm pretty new to some of the 'lingo' so forgive me, but I'm trying to really just understand various outlooks...

With the devil literally being in the detail (which you would expect were wolves to show up in sheeps clothing).

May I just say, the way I see this view is that Christians who believe in osas also believe in 'sin' and 'sin' seperates us from God....but in a 'distance' way?

There are so many sins, is there anything you can do that would seperate you from God? or were you never saved in the first place if you went out and chose to reject the Gospel thereafter, even if you believed you were saved beforehand?

....so, in effect, being 'saved' is not really a guarantee once off thing, it has fluidity and doesn't 'happen' until Jesus calls us home.... you still have the free will to reject God, even though at one point you thought you were 'saved'???.....So being 'saved' has a time frame as such? Hope that makes sense

From my perspective the term OSAS means that once a person is saved (that is, moved by God from status = lost to status = found) there is no going back for them. There is no sin they can commit - nothing at all they can do to reverse that. And there is nothing at all - no matter what - that God will do to reverse that either. The person can be angry with God, even curse God from a height, sin abominably day and night from the moment he is saved 'til the day he dies .. and he will never lose his salvation (although he might reap a lot of trouble and strife in his life for his disobedience).

His salvation is all of God's grace.

It's a once-off tranaction, fueled by God's efforts - with no reversal possible.

Right, I knew there were a few different takes on salvation, freewill etc. within various protestant denominations...

Yes, Catholics believe that salvation doesn't happen until it 'happens' as such, we can and do chose to seperate ourselves from grace and return to it, we have to abide in it as such.....we have to remain in the Grace of God by not sinning, but something like yourself, that there are some sins more grave than others, for example sins against the Holy Spirit can't be forgiven. We look to the saints as examples of abiding in Grace...and we are taught that 'salvation' isn't the 'aim', it's love of God is the aim soley because he is God and embodies all goodness and mercy...

By "doesn't happen until it happens" I take you to mean that you cannot be sure you will be saved until the day that happens? This is a logical conclusion to be derived from a works-salvation, given that you can't know:

a) what the line in the sand is beyond which you are 'safe'

b) can't know whether you will succeed in crossing that line.

c) can't know whether you have crossed it.


This is such a sad thing, truly. That people could be robbed of the assurance that comes in knowing that God loves you unconditionally and will never leave you. To be robbed of the anticipation that comes from knowing you will one day see God face to face (without the worry that that face could possibly be the face of Judgement). Don't get me wrong: the idea of seeing God face to face causes me to shrink somewhat - but that's only because I don't comprehend that in his sight I am and will always be - as clean as a whistle. There is no condemnation waiting. No dissapproval.

By mentioning a sin that can't be forgiven you underline working for your salvation again. There is something you have to avoid doing - otherwise you run the risk of being truly lost. That is a work (a work being as much about doing somethings as it is about not doing other things)

As to the aim of loving God? Let me ask you: which is the more love-able God, which God has done the most for you:

a) a God who makes possible your salvation and purification, but who paves the way to his door with conditional landmines, some marked, some not so marked.

b) a God who makes possible your salvation and purification and who does all the work for you. A God who promises never to foresake you once he's found you.

Which strikes you more like a good earthly father?

Right, with respect this is alien to me to reconcile as I believe fully in our free will and that it works throughout our life, and not just passively on one occasion..... we have the choice to actively 'choose' God, and actively 'reject' God, and even after rejecting God to come home again....So it's 'fluid' iykwim....Like the Prodigal son who was fully at home, left and was accepted back again...

I'd agree the Prodigal Son parable shows that we can move totally away from God once a son of his. And that God will always welcome us back. It underscores OSAS for example.

For me, the idea of "free will" is scripturally problematic. Mans will is described as being enslaved to sin, his nature unable to apprehend the things of God, his eyes and ears blind to God, his spirit dead as a doornail, his whole being in rebellion against a God he very frequently doesn't even believe exists. Free? I just don't see it described in scripture (although I do see it assumed of scripture).

Then there is the question of the basis by which a person choose for God. There is no clear cut evidence for even the existance of a god - never mind the God of the Bible. Then there is the issue of folk who never hear of God in order to freely choose him.

These both support the notion of salvation being by Gods grace alone. Only God's grace can surmout these obstacles.

Us too, we 'work' ( hate that word ), what it implies etc. When you mention 'work' it sounds arbitrary and useless, we say we 'abide' in God, we say we stay clear of sin, that's the 'work' iykwim, and it's a 'deliberate and conscious' act too, to allow God to abide in us...

Work is good! And the work isn't arbitrary or useless. My work is also aimed so that God will abide within, in order that obedience that is due God is forthcoming, in order that God's kingdom come, in order to be a light in the darkness. There are many reasons to work... but ensuring I retain my salvation isn't one of them.

Supposing you were to find out you had a week to live. And that your efforts would be found eternally wanting. Would you spend your last week alive working for the glory of God? It's a hypothetical but I know, but the answer would reveal the self-interest that lies at the core of us - something which a works-salvation cannot help but tickle.

Absolutely! There is always the alternative.....Like yourself, you can chose God and believe you are saved, but then all of a sudden sin and find out you weren't actually saved in the first place...

We're a soul in time, with the free will and dignity to chose to abide in Christ...

Like I say, there is no sin that can un-save me

The alternative you suggest is not doing the work that retains your salvation. That a person chooses to do the work that retains their salvation doesn't alter the fact that the salvation is a works based one.

I would grant that there are perhaps some who call themselves Catholic and believe that if they are 'good' then they have salvation, even if they don't have 'faith' - but this is most certainly not what the Church teaches - quite the opposit in fact!

What is this faith and how does one get it .. in Catholicism?

I think you could phrase it anyway you like , hell exists for people who don't put their faith in Jesus. I do know that we are taught to love God because he embodies all that is 'good', and we should fly towards the light always 'Jesus'...and want what is good because it's God's will for us...

And this state of affairs is achieved by not only choosing it, but going on choosing it, persevering in it?

That's work. Something you have to do.

We are not to 'sin'. The same as yourself....that's the 'work', to choose Jesus and abide in him, and listen and learn from our Church as a faith guide and moral guide, and receive Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the sacraments to help us abide with Christ...

... or else.

At least you understand that the Church doesn't teach a 'works' based salvation...it's 'faith' and 'perceverence in faith to avoid sin'....

... or else.

I still don't see the humongous difference, other than you believe you're saved before salvation, and I don't believe I am saved until salvation iykwim....

I am saved from the day I'm saved. Salvation occurred that day (in much the same way that salvation at sea occurs the moment the helicoptor arrives on the scene - even though you're not yet back at home with a cup of hot tea to warm you up).

You're not saved yet (you believe). And you don't know whether you will be because you have no grounds for absolute certainty.

It's quite confusing I must say, the 'lingo' sometimes gets in the way...

You do believe in free will though, right?

Post-the day I was saved? Yes. I had free will and continue to have it. When I die I'll loose that free will. I won't be free to sin anymore. Can't wait..

Pre-salvation? No. I was just like all other lost men: a slave to sin, an addict. As free as a junkie with a needle hanging out of his arm (if you'll forgive the horrid (if accurate) comparison)

antiskeptic

double post

antiskeptic

Slav wrote: »

I think it's a fairly recent development that is not directly related to the salvation by works issue (unless we count going to confession as works).

We do. If you have to do something to contribute to your being saved (or your chances of being saved) then that's a work. If confession is a "must" without which you're lost or increase your chances of being lost, then you've got yourself a work.

I also doubt that this is the understanding of the mortal sin held by the majority of Catholics. I guess if asked which one of two quotes from the same catechism bears more weight "those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell" or "there are no limits to the mercy of God" I guess the majority would vote for the later. Some of them would probably even explain how they don't contradict each other.

That uncertainty regarding your eternal destination is a feature of Roman Catholic salvation doesn't in any way alter it being a work-based system.

If you're pointed to activities that can 'reduce your chances of salvation' and told to avoid them or having failed to avoid them, are told to do other things to wipe that particular slate clean-ish, then you're in a works-based-salvation system right up to your neck.

Even still, I don't know if there is any infallible (form the RCC perspective) source that clearly says that unrepented so-called mortal sin unavoidably leads to damnation.

Yet the lesson is clear: Walk this way. Avoid that way. And you might be saved.

lmaopml

Hi Antiskeptic. I can see where you get the idea from that Christ never loses you etc. and will defo spend some time re-reading your posts, as I wish to understand it more fully... I'm on borrowed time at the moment as tonight is DVD night with the hubbie..lol..So as it's a big thing to ponder, I'll try to put aside some time tomorrow to explore it more fully - it's a learning curve for me, and I am most grateful that we are talking...

Still though, a quick question; Do most Protestants believe that.. 'even if they curse God from a height and sin abominably they still remain in Grace, and are saved from a point in time? - so basically if they 'believe' in Jesus then that's it?

lmaopml

Hi Slav,

I'm trying to answer your question as concise as possible, I have a tendency to meander sometimes, God help me when I get old.lol......However..

I guess in the Catholic faith, we believe the very 'nature' of mortal sin is 'rejecting' God...So if one dies and has rejected God totally and utterly even to their last breath, deliberately and with the sole intention of doing so...then I find it hard to reason how they could have salvation in Jesus....most especially if they have heard of him, known him, and still rejected him without truely seeking and asking for help to know him better...

We believe rejection of Christ deliberately is the essence of mortal sin.

As to whether God has 'mercy' on the sinner, which we all are....yes of course he does.

...at the end of the day though, only God judges perfectly, not us, he knows the heart, the reasons the circumstances, the temptations....

..so I guess the answer is I really don't know, I can only guess at it, even with some hypothetical person....but even guessing whether someone is worthy or no seems an odd concept to me...I only know my own soul and have 'hope' that I am abiding in Grace...

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66287283&postcount=78

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

This suggests to me that without challenge we stagnate. We have to fight and work on improving ourselves even if it requires outside assistance.

And:
Titus 3:8 I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone.

and:
JamesII
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Antiskeptic. I can see where you get the idea from that Christ never loses you etc. and will defo spend some time re-reading your posts, as I wish to understand it more fully... I'm on borrowed time at the moment as tonight is DVD night with the hubbie..lol..So as it's a big thing to ponder, I'll try to put aside some time tomorrow to explore it more fully - it's a learning curve for me, and I am most grateful that we are talking...

Talk is good

Still though, a quick question; Do most Protestants believe that.. 'even if they curse God from a height and sin abominably they still remain in Grace, and are saved from a point in time? - so basically if they 'believe' in Jesus then that's it?

As you might imagine, view vary. Those leaning towards the Arminian argument would see the possiblity of a person losing their salvation - but not because of anger with God, but rather, by denying their faith altogether. In the main, as I've experienced it, most 'protestants' would draw the line at "nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus". Not even acts/omissions on their part.

As to what constitutes the essence of salvation, what is the ultimate tipping point from lost-to-found? That varies also.

Calvinists hold that God has foreordained from the beginning that this one will be saved and that one won't be - quite aside from anything a person might do or choose. He makes sure those chosen people come to believe in Jesus. And so their believing in Jesus-as-saviour is more a consequence of God having first chosen to save them and less a cause of their salvation. Everyone else holds that man makes a choice of some description: and the result of that choice is that God reveals Jesus as saviour. The choice is a once off event.

God chooses man (Calvinism)
Man chooses God (everyone else (in the main))


It should be noted that "cursing God from a height" is a theoretical thing. The Holy Spirit coming to reside in a person brings a change. That change means that even taking Christs name in vain becomes something the person finds difficult to do. Indeed, hearing others do so, comes like a punch in the face at times. But a person can be angry with God, disappointed in God, furious with God. And perhaps in anguish at a lost child, might even go so far as to curse God.

lmaopml

Hi antiskeptic,
Ok, I see there are very many views as to Jesus message within the Protestant faiths, and even as to whether we have free will or no...

The concept of 'osas' fits in better, to my mind, with the views of Calvin, to me - in a logical way...because 'we' don't really know until the event - we're just surmising!

I can't help feel that in the surmising we are 'saved' at a point in time that something seems off with that...or even boastful of our status, given that we have free will.

....I know, obviously that most people aren't going around boasting like there's no tomorrow, but it seems presumtious.......?? especially when 'sin' is so poorly defined? ..and stressed so much in the bible? Why would it be stressed so much to not give in to temptation?

Otherwise, and I really sincerely don't mean harm or offense, I'm just 'talking' and letting the thoughts flow freely, it seems a contradiction in terms when I look at the lengths Jesus went to in order to save everybody...it seems more logical to me, from this 'act' on his behalf that we have a 'role' to play...not a once off role..but a continuous journey to stay on the path and 'bear fruit'..and 'abide'...

..so obviously it's 'how' we abide in Christ that is the topic of discussion that would possibly give more understanding to eachother...

...but what 'stirs' me, is perhaps the idea that we're made in the image of God, everyone of us!.... and I find this difficult to reconcile with the bible and the persona of Jesus if we are to adhere to a passive role, with a passive free will?

I'm sorry, perhaps this is 'alien' to you, as much as the philosophy of osas is to me, or even moreso the concept of predestination too...

...but I do understand that it's a philosophy of thought that is 'out there' it's a philosophy that each of us must in earnest try to reconcile ourselves with as to the nature of God, and our creation...

lmaopml

Hi antiskeptic,
Ok, I see there are very many views as to Jesus message within the Protestant faiths, and even as to whether we have free will or no...

The concept of 'osas' fits in better, to my mind, with the views of Calvin, to me - in a logical way...because 'we' don't really know until the event - we're just surmising!

I can't help feel that in the surmising we are 'saved' at a point in time that something seems off with that...or even boastful of our status, given that we have free will.

....I know, obviously that most people aren't going around boasting like there's no tomorrow, but it seems presumtious.......?? especially when 'sin' is so poorly defined? ..and stressed so much in the bible? Why would it be stressed so much to not give in to temptation?

Otherwise, and I really sincerely don't mean harm or offense, I'm just 'talking' and letting the thoughts flow freely, it seems a contradiction in terms when I look at the lengths Jesus went to in order to save everybody...it seems more logical to me, from this 'act' on his behalf that we have a 'role' to play...not a once off role..but a continuous journey to stay on the path and 'bear fruit'..and 'abide'...

..so obviously it's 'how' we abide in Christ that is the topic of discussion that would possibly give more understanding to eachother...

...but what 'stirs' me, is perhaps the idea that we're made in the image of God, everyone of us!.... and I find this difficult to reconcile with the bible and the persona of Jesus if we are to adhere to a passive role, with a passive free will?

I'm sorry, perhaps this is 'alien' to you, as much as the philosophy of osas is to me, or even moreso the concept of predestination too...

...but I do understand that it's a philosophy of thought that is 'out there' it's a philosophy that each of us must in earnest try to reconcile ourselves with as to the nature of God, and our creation...

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, I see there are very many views as to Jesus message within the Protestant faiths, and even as to whether we have free will or no...

The question exists, whether your a Protestant or not.

Rather than see things as Protestant vs. Catholic (vs Orthodox vs Christian-related cult), I see folk as sharing some views and not others - some of which are critical and some less so.

The mode of salvation: by work or not .. is one of those criticals.

Protestant groups might not align in many things but they do align in holding that a mans salvation isn't reliant on what he does or doesn't do. Roman Catholicism on the other hand, aligns with the cults in supposing the way to God reliant on what we do. Which is not to say Roman Catholicism aligns with the cults in many ways.

The concept of 'osas' fits in better, to my mind, with the views of Calvin, to me - in a logical way...because 'we' don't really know until the event - we're just surmising!

I can't help feel that in the surmising we are 'saved' at a point in time that something seems off with that...or even boastful of our status, given that we have free will.

I look to the Bible for my understanding of once saved always saved. Once finding that there I can of course add to my overall understanding of what it appears God is up to and I can see the logic of OSAS. What's the point in re-asking a question of someone ("do you want God or not?") who's given you their final answer. What's the point in them signing their name to a contract with you if they or you can simply tear it up again.

This isn't Gods first (conditional) covenent, made be himself and a physical chosen people (the Israelites) - "IF you do this THEN I'll do that". This is God's second (unconditional convenant) , made between himself and a spiritual chosen people (those in Christ)- "I will do it all".

There is no place for boasting. I didn't do anything to contribute to my salvation. I didn't even will for it.

...I know, obviously that most people aren't going around boasting like there's no tomorrow, but it seems presumtious.......?? especially when 'sin' is so poorly defined? ..and stressed so much in the bible? Why would it be stressed so much to not give in to temptation?

What you're revealing in fact, is the difficulty you have accepting that God is a God who would gift you eternal life without you working for it. It is a bonkers idea - one that bends your mind. But it's an idea that sets the God of Grace apart from the god of every other Religion and Cult in the world. All those other Religions and Cults (including Roman Catholicism I'm afraid) demand a man contributes to his salvation. Typically, it involves you behaving a certain way / observing proscribed laws.

Go look it up. There will be differences in what it is you have to do/not do in this religion and that - but don't focus on that surface stuff. Focus on the fact that lies at the very root: your salvation (or whatever "positive afterlife outcome" the Religion/Cult promises) is dependent in some way, shape or form .... on what YOU do.

I'm not sure what you mean by sin being stressed so much. Temptation is there, I give into it. I sin. Not to underplay the seriousness of sin but .. so what? I'm a sinner. Sinners sin. God is not surprised by this.

Otherwise, and I really sincerely don't mean harm or offense,

No offence taken. You must forgive my discussing Roman Catholicism in negative light I do. The intent isn't to offend - but seeing as I consider it teaching an abject falsehood in that most essential of matters (works salvation) there is little point in beating around the bush.

I'm just 'talking' and letting the thoughts flow freely, it seems a contradiction in terms when I look at the lengths Jesus went to in order to save everybody...it seems more logical to me, from this 'act' on his behalf that we have a 'role' to play...not a once off role..but a continuous journey to stay on the path and 'bear fruit'..and 'abide'...

There is indeed a logical duty existant here. Commercial transaction logic. Jesus does this for us, it is fitting that we do that in return. He produces a good, we work to pay for that good.


The alternative logical duty is one that stems from being given a gift. We have a duty to unpack it, appreciate it, thank him for it, treasure it. This he asks us to do. There is no logical connection between being given a gift .. and having to do something in order to prevent it being taken back.

..so obviously it's 'how' we abide in Christ that is the topic of discussion that would possibly give more understanding to eachother...

I think we'd conclude the same things. The above outlines the differences being different by way of motivation. Abiding for a wage/reward vs. Abiding out of gratitude and respect and love.

...but what 'stirs' me, is perhaps the idea that we're made in the image of God, everyone of us!.... and I find this difficult to reconcile with the bible and the persona of Jesus if we are to adhere to a passive role, with a passive free will?

Made in the image. But Fallen and that image sullied in more ways than we can begin to imagine (although a swift flipping through the Rolodex of mankinds inhumanity to man should begin to inform). One of the ways in which we were sullied was (the Bible repeatedly tells us) that we were injected with a drug call Sin. Sin destroyed our free will as surely as Heroin destroys the free will of a junkie.

I do scuba diving and sometimes when out in a group, folk will beat up the bottom with their flippers - creating a blind-out of sand. You can't see the hand in front of your face and don't know whether you're sideways, upside down, right way up or what. All you can do is trust your only instrument: bubbles. The Bible is my instrument: it says fallen men don't have free will. I can trust it - or something else.

Not that passivity should disturb you. The suggestion is that a man can exercise his will in final answer to reject God's attempt to save him. Or his will can remain silent in the face of that attempt by God. In which the man will be saved.

Will does nothing = saved
Will does something = lost

A man cannot boast that he did nothing .. and was saved

I'm sorry, perhaps this is 'alien' to you, as much as the philosophy of osas is to me, or even moreso the concept of predestination too...

Hopefully OSAS is a little less problematic now. Predestination remains bonkers in my eyes too.

...but I do understand that it's a philosophy of thought that is 'out there' it's a philosophy that each of us must in earnest try to reconcile ourselves with as to the nature of God, and our creation...

I don't think I could ever reconcile myself to a God who choose this one to be saved and not that one - without any reference to the man himself.

lmaopml

Duplicate post! Probably down to editing????

I'm lucky if a post that length doesn't time out on boards....don't mind posting twice!..I've often written a response to find it disappears, even using the back button...

Tis weird!

lmaopml

Hi Antiskeptic,

I guess your 'view' of what Catholics believe and what we actually 'really' believe is at variance, this is what I was trying to clarify earlier, but I guess we are 'entrenched'...unless we dig ourselves out .....with respect, I think you are undermining us in faith, we're 'about' a long time, you yourself and your philosophy came long after...!.. and examination of the 'faith' as opposed to it's faithful is a requirement!

I 'truely' believe that when Jesus said his coming would cause 'division'..he was speaking of 'us'! Not 'me and you' in particular, but he 'knew'..!...We're coming from 'backgrounds' of thought and philosophy..but there is a 'middle ground'..

I will defo say that I can 'see' where the idea of osas comes from, 'biblically' when I 'extract'!

...and the concept that Christ never loses us once we are 'his'!...

Believe it or no, we believe the very same thing...We have 'faith' and we put our 'hope' and 'trust' in Jesus and our 'faith' in him as our salvation is absolute; but we're taught that we are a work in progress that 'faith' imposes responsiblility to others and ourselves..We're not quite 'done'..till we're 'done'..

....but we do believe that we are given the 'dignity' of being made in the image of God, of 'free will'....and that we 'do' fall...and 'can' actively choose with our actions to fall from Gods will -...that's why we seek to reconcile ourselves and 'fight' our earthly whims..Yes, I can see that throughout history it's difficult to decipher at times, but the Church never sways from the basics...as so many have....With respect, I equally I would see osas as a dangerous doctrine to sway down the wrong path...

We also adhere to the Lords prayer....and wonder why we would be asked not to lead us not into 'temptation'....if we are already saved and it's a done deal? 'Sin' as a concept is not something that Jesus eradicated, he covered so much, but not 'wilfull' sin....and especially not 'knowing' him and then sinning....

Perhaps it's a case of earnest 'search'? We don't know the details and how they 'help' or impede...but we try...

and for 'once' I am rather glad this chat hasn't started off going down the road of...... 'How I interpret this, or how I interpret that'..in the bible, because it's quite clear, that 'both' views are there, but 'I' believe the fullness is truth and dignity is found in the Catholic church!....

We either interpret ourselves or, as with the Catholic faith we see the truth ( Holy Spirit ) at work, and study it with an open heart.....yes, there are bad people everywhere, but, imo, the 'stock' and fullness of faith can be found in no other...and the dignity it gives each person is like no other..the dignity of 'full' free will empoweres the person to choose wisely, which I believe God intended..


As Roman Catholics this isn't an 'insincere' concept, to believe wholeheartedy in Christ as the savior is beautiful! ..and most likely will bring many souls home....but the view presented here seems 'boastful' and 'sure'....

However, we also believe that when we give ourselves in 'faith' in Jesus, which is our 'Grace'..( Lingo, Lingo ) and 'give' ourselves completely, he 'never' loses us! The difference perhaps here is the 'completely'....and how we define it? We believe we 'must' abide and this abiding 'shows' in the fruit we bear and above all our love for eachother...

Once saved always saved, seems to give absolute 'credence' and the ultimate sacrifice of Christ as our saviour that 'never' loses us in 'grace'...which is certain and sure so long as we 'stay' that way and don't reject him inwardly and in doing so 'outwardly'....

..but 'grace' is subject to 'abidance'....

..and how to 'abide' is the 'tool' of my Catholic faith.

St. Francis perhaps puts it well...

To 'love' goodness quite simply because of goodness, and not to be so sure of heaven, or concentrate so much on 'saved'...but so serve in humility and hope....

strobe

Just to add a completely unwanted, obtrusive, outsiders opinion....:D

In terms of a works based; you have to earn it, style Christianity, verses a; you can do whatever the fukk you want to do as long as you really really believe Jesus is brilliant and deep in your soul you want to be good, style Christianity......I would very much prefer if the former were the vast majority walking the earth.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess your 'view' of what Catholics believe and what we actually 'really' believe is at variance, this is what I was trying to clarify earlier, but I guess we are 'entrenched'...unless we dig ourselves out .....with respect, I think you are undermining us in faith, we're 'about' a long time, you yourself and your philosophy came long after...!.. and examination of the 'faith' as opposed to it's faithful is a requirement!

The purpose of the thread is to tease out what it is Roman Catholicism teaches in the first instance. Thereafter, the idea would be to figure out whether "things to be done" (assuming there are things to be done) can be described as 'work'.

In any such discussion, where two very different opinions exist about the way things are, faith (or the argument which supports one's faith) may be undermined. I wouldn't myself be concerned with that. It is through such discussions that I moved from being Calvinistically-inclined to not. And from being YEC to not. If my position doesn't successfully meet challenges then my position should be willing to change. That's what I think anyway.


I'm not all that convinced that the length of time Roman Catholicism has been around for has any absolute bearing on anything. Nor am I convinced that Roman Catholicism has been around for quite as long as it says it has been (ie: from Peter on). Evolutionarily speaking, an animal today can rightly claim direct connection back to an origin point. That doesn't mean a human is an amoeba though. To my mind, the church of Christ in constantly evolving and the Catholic church is but one branch of that evolution

The question we're addressing here is whether that branch is one that should be (or has been already) cut off by the Gardener.

I 'truly' believe that when Jesus said his coming would cause 'division'..he was speaking of 'us'! Not 'me and you' in particular, but he 'knew'..!...We're coming from 'backgrounds' of thought and philosophy..but there is a 'middle ground'..

In Protestant denominations there is a saying along the lines of "in essentials unity, in no-essentials tolerance". I'm not all that sure that a middle ground is possible on the essential in question here however. Nor am I inclined to suppose the unity Christ/Paul exorted us to, involves diluting those essentials.

By work/man or by grace/God are about as polar opposite as you can get. By works + by grace isn't a middle ground

I will defo say that I can 'see' where the idea of osas comes from, 'biblically' when I 'extract'!

...and the concept that Christ never loses us once we are 'his'!...

Believe it or no, we believe the very same thing...We have 'faith' and we put our 'hope' and 'trust' in Jesus and our 'faith' in him as our salvation is absolute; but we're taught that we are a work in progress that 'faith' imposes responsiblility to others and ourselves..We're not quite 'done'..till we're 'done'..

The two positions sound very similar, don't they? The Bible teaches that Christians have a responsibility both to others and to self and to God. That there is a race to be won, a struggle to be engaged in, a master to be obeyed. The glaring difference however is that 'my' system doesn't involve a salvation-related "or else" at any point in proceedings. There are consequences for disobedience of course. But just not salvation-related consequences.

The "or else" inherent in your system is but a tiny term. But it renders our respective systems of salvation as night and day.

....but we do believe that we are given the 'dignity' of being made in the image of God, of 'free will'....and that we 'do' fall...and 'can' actively choose with our actions to fall from Gods will -...that's why we seek to reconcile ourselves and 'fight' our earthly whims..Yes, I can see that throughout history it's difficult to decipher at times, but the Church never sways from the basics...as so many have....With respect, I equally I would see osas as a dangerous doctrine to sway down the wrong path...

OSAS is both a dangerous doctrine - at least on first sight - and a beautiful doctrine. Dangerous because it immediately introduces the logical conclusion: "hang on a sec, doesn't that mean that I can sin all I like and still get to heaven? Hey Ho, let's go!!"

There are but two main objections to the doctrine of salvation by grace and this is one of them. Paul, after presenting his argument for salvation by grace (Romans 3:20 > end chapter 5) immediately takes on the objections he predicts will be raised. Starting with this, your one.

Addressing Christians in Romans 6, who've just been told that God's grace is what overcomes sin unto salvation.

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Go on sinning? "By no means ...don't you know.." Don't you know what's happened to you? Don't you know what you now are? Don't you know that you've been translated out of the realm of satan into the very family of God? Don't you know you've actually been put to death regarding sin within and have been raised to new life. Don't you know that you've been born again - that the Old You that enjoyed and revelled in sin by nature has been crucified in Christ? Don't you know that the purpose of God doing this was that you could lead new life?

Logically you can go on sinning all you like. But there is more to life than logic. How about living consistant with who and what you are? Does living consistantly with what you are involve a WWII Allied soldier fighting for the Nazi's? Is it consistant living that a policeman engage in burglary? Of course not!! By no means.

That is Pauls approach - inevitably so, when he is exhorting us to work in any of his epistles. Be consistant with what and who you are. Don't live incongruently. The exhortation appeals to that LOGIC. IF you are a child of God THEN live like a child of God. Anything else and you are being illogical.

And it's a beautiful doctrine. Imagine what it would feel like to know your eternal life has started already - and is irrevocably yours. Imagine how you'd look on life now - through completely new eyes. And the attitude you'd have to others realising that they are trapped in their sin. And the attitude you might have on approaching death. Consider the term "life in abundance" and ask yourself whether the potential prospect of loosing your salvation (because you don't, as a Roman Catholic, know that life won't permit you to fall from grace) is as abundant a prospect as the one in which your eternal destination is secure - whatever life brings.

We also adhere to the Lords prayer....and wonder why we would be asked not to lead us not into 'temptation'....if we are already saved and it's a done deal? 'Sin' as a concept is not something that Jesus eradicated, he covered so much, but not 'wilfull' sin....and especially not 'knowing' him and then sinning....

I'm not sure of the point you're making here. I'm not suggesting Jesus eradicated sin. We do sin and we do need ongoing forgiveness. The idea is that Jesus covered all my sin: past, present ..and future.

I don't know of any sin that isn't wilful. Do you?

Perhaps it's a case of earnest 'search'? We don't know the details and how they 'help' or impede...but we try...

I find the Bible lays out the mechanism of all sorts of things in fantastic detail and harmony. The nature of salvation is but one.

and for 'once' I am rather glad this chat hasn't started off going down the road of...... 'How I interpret this, or how I interpret that'..in the bible, because it's quite clear, that 'both' views are there, but 'I' believe the fullness is truth and dignity is found in the Catholic church!....

You would agree tho' that this is a personal choice of yours at root. Where it is you lay your head, so to speak. And so, it differs not at all, at root, from what I do. I chose myself where to lay my head. We find this "personal primacy" expressed perfectly in..

We either interpret ourselves or, as with the Catholic faith we see the truth ( Holy Spirit ) at work, and study it with an open heart

- I am the one who decides which interpretation to accept (built up from various sources)

- You are the one who decides which interpretation to accept (built up from one source)

Ultimately we both do our own interpretation - what with each of us being the one to choose where our interpretation comes from. And both claiming assist from the Holy Spirit.

.....yes, there are bad people everywhere, but, imo, the 'stock' and fullness of faith can be found in no other...and the dignity it gives each person is like no other..the dignity of 'full' free will empoweres the person to choose wisely, which I believe God intended..

The biblical position is that as lost men we are all bad. All in sin. All equally in need of salvation. "No one is righteous - not one". And as saved men have the righteousness of Christ.

As Roman Catholics this isn't an 'insincere' concept, to believe wholeheartedy in Christ as the savior is beautiful! ..and most likely will bring many souls home....but the view presented here seems 'boastful' and 'sure'....

It is sure. 100% sure. The suggestion is that any loving father (a model not chosen by God per accident) would want his children to be 100% sure.

It is not boastful in the sense of me boasting of myself - I did nothing to contribute. How can I boast in myself?

The word "boast" is a bit like the word "jealously". It tends to always be seen in negative light. There are good shades of jealously however - such as "He was jealous of his wifes honourable name". Or Exodus "3414 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."

Similarily, there is no problem boasting...Gal 6:14

"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world"

That's who I boast in. Not in myself.

However, we also believe that when we give ourselves in 'faith' in Jesus, which is our 'Grace'..( Lingo, Lingo ) and 'give' ourselves completely, he 'never' loses us! The difference perhaps here is the 'completely'....and how we define it? We believe we 'must' abide and this abiding 'shows' in the fruit we bear and above all our love for eachother...

Which brings us back on topic. It might be that we can agree that Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by works - with the works being an expression of whether you want what Jesus offers or not. I simply cannot figure out how words like "must abide" can be used without the inferance of an "or else" attached.

And your wanting what he offers must reach a certain standard ("completely") before you obtain what he offers. There is a bar that must be cleared (the height of which, cruelly, you don't know - because "completely" isn't defined anywhere)

How would you define a works-salvation if not so?

Once saved always saved, seems to give absolute 'credence' and the ultimate sacrifice of Christ as our saviour that 'never' loses us in 'grace'...which is certain and sure so long as we 'stay' that way and don't reject him inwardly and in doing so 'outwardly'....

..but 'grace' is subject to 'abidance'....

No it is not.

Grace is a word from which the word gratis derives. The word gratis means 100% free. Grace is not conditional on you doing something, it is not paid for, it is not retracted if you don't scale certain heights. Grace which is earned/paid for/worked for in order to retain it ...isn't grace. You need to think of a different word for whatever it is that is being issued by God. English, at the end of the day, remains English

St. Francis perhaps puts it well...

To 'love' goodness quite simply because of goodness, and not to be so sure of heaven, or concentrate so much on 'saved'...but so serve in humility and hope....

Slaves to sin cannot love goodness. The very nature of fallen men is to hate goodness. Perhaps that's where we also differ - you're supposing that we have free will.

Could you answer that query posed earlier? The one in which I asked whether you would continue serving God if you someway knew now that you'd miss the mark set by him and would be finally lost?

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Just to add a completely unwanted, obtrusive, outsiders opinion....:D

Actually it's quite welcome. Watch..

In terms of a works based; you have to earn it, style Christianity, verses a; you can do whatever the fukk you want to do as long as you really really believe Jesus is brilliant and deep in your soul you want to be good, style Christianity......I would very much prefer if the former were the vast majority walking the earth.

Your wish is granted!

Every world Religion (major, minor and cult) demands that you work for your salvation/positive afterlife outcome. Bar one: biblical Christianity.

And if you were to ask even unbelievers-in-any-Religion whether entrance to heaven/postive afterlife outcome should be works-based (in the case that heaven actually exists) you would inevitably get a "yes" answer.

That's something huh? The whole Religious world and his unbelieving brother holds to the exact same principle: a man should work for his salvation. Except biblical Christianity - whereby salvation is by God's grace alone.



Interestingly, if you ask them whether they think they should be permitted entry to this heaven based on how they lived their lives, the unbelieving world will inevitably say "yes".

"I've done some stuff in my life that I'm not proud of - but I'm not such a bad chap. If God exists, he should be okay with me".

Apparently, this stance is true of even unbelieving murderers and rapists. Go figure!

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

We do. If you have to do something to contribute to your being saved (or your chances of being saved) then that's a work. If confession is a "must" without which you're lost or increase your chances of being lost, then you've got yourself a work.

I think it's a bit more complicated then that. First of all this work is not a payment towards salvation (I'll cover it later). Second, it's not the confession as such that counts - it's the repentance, the transformation and conversion to Christ. Same way we can say that faith is work because it's supposed to be active; otherwise it's just a knowledge and it's dead according to James 2:14-26. I think that's why Catholics don't really separate the two.

That uncertainty regarding your eternal destination is a feature of Roman Catholic salvation doesn't in any way alter it being a work-based system.

If you're pointed to activities that can 'reduce your chances of salvation' and told to avoid them or having failed to avoid them, are told to do other things to wipe that particular slate clean-ish, then you're in a works-based-salvation system right up to your neck.

I don't think so. I can also say this uncertainty does not alter their salvation from being faith-based.

If you are told that lack of faith reduces the chances of salvation then it's a faith-based salvation system.

In reality the system is not work-based or faith-based. It's neither of them - Catholics acknowledge that it's just a God's mystery and don't research how it works exactly.

Yet the lesson is clear: Walk this way. Avoid that way. And you might be saved.

I guess this is the root cause of the misconception that RCC teaches works-based salvation.

Do good deeds - yes. Avoid sin - yes. And you might be saved - no! The whole point of the works (of we are about to separate them from faith) is not to gain salvation. It's to restore unity with the Church and with God. That's it. The rest is up to Christ and it's a mystery for us.

In short: it is communion that can be seen as works-based, but not salvation.

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

We believe rejection of Christ deliberately is the essence of mortal sin.

Thanks lmaopml

I guess I were a Catholic I needed to make sense out of that quote from the CCC I would come up with a similar explanation though I must admit I would probably have a hard time defending it.

However not being a member of the RCC (and being of very low opinion of the quality of Catechism) I just think the authors made an error putting it there. Mortal sins should only be connected to the loss of certain type of grace (as the rest of CCC suggests) but not salvation. Still it's not my belief but at least this way it will be logical and consistent.

antiskeptic

Slav wrote: »

I think it's a bit more complicated then that. First of all this work is not a payment towards salvation (I'll cover it later).

Okay...later.

Second, it's not the confession as such that counts - it's the repentance, the transformation and conversion to Christ.

Yet when we look at repentence, we see it means turning away from the sin. Which means struggling and striving not to commit that sin again. If you don't struggle and strive - but walk out of the confession box and into that sin again, then you are not repentent - and your salvation (in Roman Catholicism terms) is in jeopardy.


And we are back to a work. The work relies on you and your ongoing attitude to repentance.

Same way we can say that faith is work because it's supposed to be active; otherwise it's just a knowledge and it's dead according to James 2:14-26. I think that's why Catholics don't really separate the two.

Faith is indeed meant to produce works. It's just that in Roman Catholicism, those works need to shape up to a standard or else you're in trouble. In grace-based salvation, the works demonstrate your faith alright. But you are not condemned for your lack of expression of faith.

I don't think so. I can also say this uncertainty does not alter their salvation from being faith-based.

If you are told that lack of faith reduces the chances of salvation then it's a faith-based salvation system.

Where does one get sufficient faith - other than doing?

Back to works.

In reality the system is not work-based or faith-based. It's neither of them - Catholics acknowledge that it's just a God's mystery and don't research how it works exactly.

If they don't know how it works, then they have no business advising that a person need do this, that and the other by way of works. No matter that they don't understand it completely - if works are any part of it, then it's a works based salvation (just like a bucket with any sized hole in it is a leaking bucket)

Do good deeds - yes. Avoid sin - yes. And you might be saved - no! The whole point of the works (of we are about to separate them from faith) is not to gain salvation. It's to restore unity with the Church and with God. That's it. The rest is up to Christ and it's a mystery for us.

In short: it is communion that can be seen as works-based, but not salvation.

You seem to be suggesting that the person who couldn't give a fig about God, church, repentance, communion and all the rest of it has as much of a chance of salvation as the person who does all they can to commune with God? As far as is known in any case.

As soon as salvation chances are increased/diminished by your communing/non-communing activities you are back to a works-based system. Back to appeasing God.

smurfhousing

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than take a topic off-topic.




This is a works-based salvation: your salvation is a function of/dependent upon your working, your effort, your struggling against sin. If you don't do the work set before you, you don't get the salvation.

There is no material difference between someone who works and is given a wage at the end of the day and someone who has a wage packet stuffed in their pocket in the morning that they must work for in order to retain at the end of the day.





I'd see myself as non-denominatal and was raised in nominal Catholicism. The view if formed by the realisation that if our salvation depends in any way upon our effort then it cannot be by grace. And a salvation by partial grace by God + partial work by us is a works salvation.





Indeed. Salvation by grace only permits no other - bonkers as the mere notion might sound.

Although I am not a Calvinist

Luther added a word to the scriptures. Romans 3:28:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law

He also wanted to throw out the Book of James from the Bible. Several red lights have just come on in my own mind!

antiskeptic

smurfhousing wrote: »

Luther added a word to the scriptures. Romans 3:28:

So remove it.

"I got here by plane". This doesn't permit you to suppose I got here by plane, train and automobile.

He also wanted to throw out the Book of James from the Bible. Several red lights have just come on in my own mind!

Infallibility isn't a device used outside the Roman Catholic Church.

It's not as if there aren't other verses that can't be taken in isolation to indicate works required for salvaton. Although you'd get to thinking James "faith without works is dead" was the only one - so frequently is it quoted