Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

[Right Divider]

No they're not, that's just YOUR NARRATIVE.

No, it's just true.

Right in John 1 we read that the Old Testament was given by Moses, and we infer that the New Testament is given by Jesus (which is called "grace", verses 16-17).

That is YOUR NARRATIVE.... have you never noticed that Christ is never recorded in scripture using the word "grace" during His earthly ministry to His people, Israel?

We read about the 'DBR' in verse 29, "

Again, the twelve were preaching the gospel of the kingdom for at least 2 years without knowing that Christ would die.
Anyone can see that the gospel of the kingdom was NOT the gospel of the grace of God.

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"----He's going to take away the sin of the world through the 'DBR'. And we also read that Jesus is the One " which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost," not with water. That's all New Testament, and that's right in John 1.

'DBR' in like AD 33. Galatians, Mark, 1st Thessalonians, the first books of the New Testament to be written down, like AD 50. 17 years of Church happened before the first book of the NT was written down. Up until like AD 50 it was all oral tradition, 'word-of-mouth'.

Paul is OUR pattern.... you are lost in religion by following the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL. Your "church" has claimed a FALSE authority and have led you astray.

 

[Idolater]

No, it's just true.

That is YOUR NARRATIVE.... have you never notice that Christ is never recorded in scripture using the word "grace" during His earthly ministry to His people, Israel?

How is it my narrative and not your narrative? Isn't "Paul's Gospel" called the "Gospel of Grace" by MADs?

And it doesn't matter if Jesus never said grace. Your contention is that John's Gospel is Old Testament but right away in John 1 John starts talking about "grace". That's not Old Testament.

Again, the twelve were preaching the gospel of the kingdom for at least 2 years without knowing that Christ would die.
Anyone can see that the gospel of the kingdom was NOT the gospel of the grace of God.



Paul is OUR pattern.... you are lost in religion by following the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL. Your "church" has claimed a FALSE authority and have led you astray.

You're regurgitating MAD rhetoric. I've heard it all before, save your breath.

 

[glorydaz]

You're regurgitating MAD rhetoric. I've heard it all before, save your breath.

You've "heard" it, but it's quite clear you have zip spiritual understanding....even unto now.

 

[Clete]

All the ones that aren't about Him being the Son of God (as the Creed specifies and describes, "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father"), and Him rising from the dead (ibid. the Creed's, " rose again on the third day").

But honestly Clete I'm only giving you my 'Protestant' answer to this very Protestant question, which I perceive to be, basically, what really is the barest essential to saving Christian faith, according to Catholicism, for a Catholic.

Catholics can't claim to not know certain things, whereas if someone is raised in a situation where they're taught that Jesus isn't God, or that the Resurrection was phony somehow (e.g. in Islam), those people are ignorant, or can claim ignorance, but for a Catholic, we're always reminded that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead----every single Mass.

But as far as I'm concerned, for Noncatholics, it's really up to you all to decide for yourself what it means to believe in Christ, and then all according to your own conscience on the matter of Him, you are either saved or not. That's Catholicism's view of the matter, according to my 'Protestant' treatment of Catholicism, as a monolithic theory, that is accurately expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when understood in light of the Bible.

I agree with you. But I also believe that Catholicism itself is basically nothing more than a fleshing out of Romans 10:9-10

I would just say . . . then you have to believe in the Catholic Jesus, even if you're not Catholic, because Catholicism is the original theory that believes in the "right" Jesus, according to you all. It would just be giving credit where it's due.

Yeah.

Based on this, which I do NOT take to be definitive for all Catholics, I can know, without question, that you are not a Christian except in the Catholic sense of the word. You certainly are not a Christian in the biblical sense, in the SAVED sense of that word.

No true believer could even attempt to dance around plainly worded questions of this nature.

 

[Right Divider]

How is it my narrative and not your narrative? Isn't "Paul's Gospel" called the "Gospel of Grace" by MADs?

We stick with Biblical definitions for things in the Bible.

Acts 20:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:24) But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

And it doesn't matter if Jesus never said grace.

If He was teaching them the same gospel as Paul... He would most certainly use the word GRACE.

Your contention is that John's Gospel is Old Testament but right away in John 1 John starts talking about "grace". That's not Old Testament.

Again, for the deaf, dumb and blind...

Heb 9:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(9:16) For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (9:17) For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The new testament could NOT come into being until the DEATH of the TESTATOR (i.e., Christ). This occurs very LATE in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Jesus lived and died under the OLD COVENANT.

You're regurgitating MAD rhetoric. I've heard it all before, save your breath.

There is nothing rhetorical about it... it's just what the Bible says.

Thanks for playing... I will consider you to be an unbeliever from now on.

 

[glorydaz]

Well, if you ask me, that's what I'm doing. That's sort of the point of the exercise, right? I started that thread to provide an explicit answer to the question, "What is Paul's gospel?"


That's an excellent question but what I've driving at presumes that a person has believed all six points of the gospel as I've presented them.

Again, the emphasis here is not on me, or the way I've worded things. Quite the contrary, the whole point of the thread that produced those six points what to think through the issues and come up with a concise way of stating them. I'm not attached at the hip to them the way they are. If someone thinks they need modification then let's discuss it and see if there is a better way to state it.


Oh, I disagree completely. It is just the exact opposite of a waste of time. It's no more a waste of time for us to understand the core of the gospel than it is for a Secret Service agent to be intimately familiar with real American currency.

Besides, how is this discussion not simply one version of the very examination of ourselves that you rightly point out that Paul admonishes us to do?

Ah, well I'm slow to the starting gate as usual. Now you're going to make me concentrate on your list, and that's all well and good. It just doesn't sound "right" to me, but I'll look again.

I agree with you here. Once we've been saved, we belong to Him and we are, from that day forth, Jesus' handiwork. Anything we attempt to add is a work of the flesh that He will remove, either now or at the Judgment seat of Christ. Those that have stubbornly refused to repent of such fleshly works will suffer loss but they themselves will be saved, as though through fire and they will be saved precisely and ONLY because there was a time in their life where they believed the actual gospel, which is what I think I've presented in those six points.

It's down to the matter of whether they were actually begotten of the gospel.
Assuming they were, then we can be confident they are members of the body. New creatures.

So you don't believe that any person that have really been saved can ever fall into error? You don't believe that it is possible for a person to read the book of James and get confused about whether works are required for salvation? Is every member of the Church of Christ actually unsaved?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by falling into error.

I can't imagine any believer adding any kind of bondage to his FREE GIFT of salvation.

Rather they're quite likely to go the other direction, and walk after the flesh as they're growing in grace.
We see the struggles of the "babes" in Corinth.

Any believer reading James will know something is OFF. They may not know why it's off, but they know.
That's what the Spirit does for us.....that still small voice.
I can speak from experience on this one. Lots of things didn't make sense until I learned about Dispensations.


But, I have no idea about the Church of Christ preaches.

That is certainly not compatible with the way I understand Paul's gospel of grace.


Well, this seems to be the crux of the disagreement, particularly when it comes to musterion's objection.

He (and perhaps you as well) seems to be saying that in addition to the six points I've presented, there needs to be an affirmative and explicit rejection of good works having any role in getting saved. It seems to me that simply omitting any mention of them as a requirement is sufficient. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Clete

Well, the gospel is more than 1 Cor. 15 which why you've compiled your list, I' thinking.

You should include this one in your list.

Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[glorydaz]

No. Nope. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the whole entire New Testament wasn't written down until way after the 'DBR' occurred, Galatians or Mark or 1st Thessalonians was not written until like AD 50. The whole entire Christian faith was "oral tradition" until the first book of the New Testament was written. Even single book of the NT was written to an already established, existing and 'operating' Church.

No----now, you don't believe that! It's "Christian" to not invade Ukraine, for example. And Vlad Putin doesn't have to be a Christian in order to not invade Ukraine! I don't believe that you think that. I think you misspoke.

In terms of salvation sure.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that God is using Putin to bring forth the beginning of tribulation and the revealing of the Antichrist?
If He is, you're standing against God.

 

[glorydaz]

No true believer could even attempt to dance around plainly worded questions of this nature.

Ah ha.

I agree, there are lines which no true believer will cross.

 

[Clete]

Ah, well I'm slow to the starting gate as usual. Now you're going to make me concentrate on your list, and that's all well and good. It just doesn't sound "right" to me, but I'll look again.

It's down to the matter of whether they were actually begotten of the gospel.
Assuming they were, then we can be confident they are members of the body. New creatures.

The question that I was attempting to answer in the original thread is what must be minimally believed in order to be "begotten of the gospel" as you put it. Those six points was my answer to that question.

Is there something more you think must be added to what I've included or anything that I have included that you think isn't necessary?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by falling into error.

It could be nearly anything. It is my belief that one CANNOT lose their salvation once they have it. If they could, it would no longer be a gospel of grace. That might sound to some as a license to sin but that leaves God out of the picture and replaces the foundation of grace, which is love, with fear. Those who have the greatest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin, not because they fear losing their salvation but because the same thing that causes them to appreciate grace also causes them to love God. Love is a far greater motivating factor than fear.

I can't imagine any believer adding any kind of bondage to his FREE GIFT of salvation.

Christians have been doing it from the very beginning. That's what the whole book of Galatians is all about! That's what Paul spent more time writing about than almost any other single topic. It is the central struggle of the Christian life.

God nailed the law to that tree at Calvary (Colossians 2:14) and in so doing, He undid the curse that befell us at that other tree in the Garden of God. The law is the result of Adam eating that forbidden fruit. It is that fruit! We who are in Christ then have it just as Adam had in the garden. Adam was told not to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We are told the same. Do not partake of the Law. It's the same struggle except that Adam had an advantage that we still lack...

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

​

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!​

The Jew was under the Law, which not only was of the flesh but brought fear of judgment and death and which the Jew could not keep but was still saved because God, looking forward to the cross, under-girded the Law with grace. If the Jew shunned the law, he was cut off from grace but for us it is ALL grace. There is no longer any fear of death and judgement because Christ willingly took of of that in our place.

Rather they're quite likely to go the other direction, and walk after the flesh as they're growing in grace.
We see the struggles of the "babes" in Corinth.

And Galatians, and Philippi and Rome! It's like practically every Christian Paul wrote to was a babe in Christ, right?

Any believer reading James will know something is OFF. They may not know why it's off, but they know.
That's what the Spirit does for us.....that still small voice.
I can speak from experience on this one. Lots of things didn't make sense until I learned about Dispensations.

I can tell you for certain that you are an anomoly in this case. The overwhelming vast majority of Christians have no clue that there any conflict at all between the book of James and Paul's gospel. They don't even know that there is any such thing as Paul's gospel. People believe what they are taught to believe and it is the rare exception to find the one who thinks for himself and rarer still the one who is willing to entertain the notion of more than one gospel in the New Testament. There are millions and millions of dispensationalists that insist that Paul and James were teaching the same thing and that any appearance of discord between the two isn't real but only imagined.

But, I have no idea about the Church of Christ preaches.

They are famously (and proudly) legalistic. They believe that one MUST be water baptized, as in dunked under water, in order to be saved. They believe that any church that does not include "Christ" in the name of the church isn't a real church. There may be others that are more legalistic but they'd have to try pretty hard.

But the point wasn't so much about the Church of Christ, per se. Any legalistic sect would do.

Well, the gospel is more than 1 Cor. 15 which why you've compiled your list, I' thinking.

Not really, no. The point of the list is not to communicate every point of doctrine believed by a properly educated Christian. It is an attempt to present the most minimal list of things that one needs to get over the hump, sort of speak. What things MUST one believe in order to be saved?

Must one believe that God exists? YES - it goes on the list.
Will believing in ANY god do? NO! - a biblical description of the real God is therefore included in the list.
MUST one believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved? This one was the source of some debate and I was persuaded that it is indeed required and so it's on the list.

See what I'm driving at?

You should include this one in your list.

Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Do you suppose that a person who does not understand that particular truth isn't saved until he does?

If not, then it does not belong in the list.
I tend to think not. It seems this truth can come after, but I could be wrong!
If you feel strongly that it is needed, then by all means, persuade me!

Clete

 

[Clete]

Ah ha.

I agree, there are lines which no true believer will cross.

No, that's an over statement. I mean, the difference between believers and non-believers is belief in the gospel, right? Idolator's evasiveness is tantamount to a denial of the gospel itself and so that's hardly a meaningful line to draw, right? I mean, that's already the line between believers and non-believers anyway.

This is one aspect of the value of the list I've presented. If you have someone who just cannot be pinned down on whether they believe those six points then it's probably time to give the person the benefit of the doubt and presume that they are not saved and treat them as the unbeliever that they most likely are.

Clete

 

[glorydaz]

No, that's an over statement. I mean, the difference between believers and non-believers is belief in the gospel, right? Idolator's evasiveness is tantamount to a denial of the gospel itself and so that's hardly a meaningful line to draw, right? I mean, that's already the line between believers and non-believers anyway.

"Evasiveness is tantamount to a denial". I like that, and it's very true.

It's the same as giving out wrong answers. A dead giveaway.
I'll have to take back what I said earlier about not really knowing if someone is saved or not.
Members of the same body certainly can recognize one another. But, of course, not always.

This is one aspect of the value of the list I've presented. If you have someone who just cannot be pinned down on whether they believe those six points then it's probably time to give the person the benefit of the doubt and presume that they are not saved and treat them as the unbeliever that they most likely are.

Clete

Yep, and it never hurts to share whatever words that were revealed to Paul....every word he spoke was gospel.
One never knows what particular word will quicken someone's understanding that they may be saved.

 

[Clete]

"Evasiveness is tantamount to a denial". I like that, and it's very true.

It's the same as giving out wrong answers. A dead giveaway.
I'll have to take back what I said earlier about not really knowing if someone is saved or not.
Members of the same body certainly can recognize one another. But, of course, not always.

Indeed! There are many wolfs in sheep's clothing. Some better disguised than others.

Yep, and it never hurts to share whatever words that were revealed to Paul....every word he spoke was gospel.
One never knows what particular word will quicken someone's understanding that they may be saved.

I agree completely. I'd say that such a list is best shared among believers as a way of sharpening one's understanding of the gospel. Since its so narrowly focused, it doesn't feel like I great way to introduce the gospel to someone new.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

Based on this, which I do NOT take to be definitive for all Catholics, I can know, without question, that you are not a Christian except in the Catholic sense of the word. You certainly are not a Christian in the biblical sense, in the SAVED sense of that word.

No true believer could even attempt to dance around plainly worded questions of this nature.

You know Clete, I 'dumbed it down' for you already. You insisted I answer Yes-No to a very complicated question, and you did not offer to 'hammer out' precisely what it all meant before I answered you, and so I obliged you. My answer was Yes.

But it turns out that I should have never given you that answer without hammering out the details of precisely what you were asking first (my evidence? Your post), so now, let's try it 'my way' instead of your way, and then we'll see if we can come to some sort of meeting of the minds here.

Because you're completely wrong that I'm not an authentic Christian man. I'm more Christian than you are.

 

[glorydaz]

Indeed! There are many wolfs in sheep's clothing. Some better disguised than others.


I agree completely. I'd say that such a list is best shared among believers as a way of sharpening one's understanding of the gospel. Since its so narrowly focused, it doesn't feel like I great way to introduce the gospel to someone new.

Clete

And that's exactly what I was thinking but couldn't seem to articulate.

 

[glorydaz]

It could be nearly anything. It is my belief that one CANNOT lose their salvation once they have it. If they could, it would no longer be a gospel of grace. That might sound to some as a license to sin but that leaves God out of the picture and replaces the foundation of grace, which is love, with fear. Those who have the greatest appreciation of grace do not continue in sin, not because they fear losing their salvation but because the same thing that causes them to appreciate grace also causes them to love God. Love is a far greater motivating factor than fear.

Christians have been doing it from the very beginning. That's what the whole book of Galatians is all about! That's what Paul spent more time writing about than almost any other single topic. It is the central struggle of the Christian life.

I don't think that true of the gentiles. The Jews, yes, they were steeped in the law, and it was the Jews who were tempted to fall back into law keeping. Gentiles, on the other hand were prone to falling back into sin and idol worship.

And Galatians, and Philippi and Rome! It's like practically every Christian Paul wrote to was a babe in Christ, right?

Yep, you're sure right about that.

I can tell you for certain that you are an anomoly in this case. The overwhelming vast majority of Christians have no clue that there any conflict at all between the book of James and Paul's gospel. They don't even know that there is any such thing as Paul's gospel. People believe what they are taught to believe and it is the rare exception to find the one who thinks for himself and rarer still the one who is willing to entertain the notion of more than one gospel in the New Testament. There are millions and millions of dispensationalists that insist that Paul and James were teaching the same thing and that any appearance of discord between the two isn't real but only imagined.


They are famously (and proudly) legalistic. They believe that one MUST be water baptized, as in dunked under water, in order to be saved. They believe that any church that does not include "Christ" in the name of the church isn't a real church. There may be others that are more legalistic but they'd have to try pretty hard.

But the point wasn't so much about the Church of Christ, per se. Any legalistic sect would do.

It's a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Preaching the wrong gospel to those who are looking for the truth. I stayed up late last night talking to a neice who was here visiting her mother. She admitted she knew nothing about Paul or his gospel. None of the churches she'd attended in her past even mentioned Paul and his letters.

Not really, no. The point of the list is not to communicate every point of doctrine believed by a properly educated Christian. It is an attempt to present the most minimal list of things that one needs to get over the hump, sort of speak. What things MUST one believe in order to be saved?

Must one believe that God exists? YES - it goes on the list.
Will believing in ANY god do? NO! - a biblical description of the real God is therefore included in the list.
MUST one believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved? This one was the source of some debate and I was persuaded that it is indeed required and so it's on the list.

See what I'm driving at?


Do you suppose that a person who does not understand that particular truth isn't saved until he does?

If not, then it does not belong in the list.
I tend to think not. It seems this truth can come after, but I could be wrong!
If you feel strongly that it is needed, then by all means, persuade me!

Clete

I think whenever we preach the gospel we have to let it be known that boasting is not allowed.
Man has nothing to boast of when he is offered that free gift of salvation. It can't be added to or subtracted from.
It's all Christ and nothing else.

Of course, each person comes with an opening ......some need they have at a particular time, and one that can only be met by our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they depressed, worried, feeling helpless, addicted? The lost are always pathetic in one area or another, so it's got to be the Spirit who opens their heart.

I'm sorry if I failed to respond to every point you made. I'm really bad at keeping track of this stuff.

 

[glorydaz]

You know Clete, I 'dumbed it down' for you already. You insisted I answer Yes-No to a very complicated question, and you did not offer to 'hammer out' precisely what it all meant before I answered you, and so I obliged you. My answer was Yes.

But it turns out that I should have never given you that answer without hammering out the details of precisely what you were asking first (my evidence? Your post), so now, let's try it 'my way' instead of your way, and then we'll see if we can come to some sort of meeting of the minds here.

Because you're completely wrong that I'm not an authentic Christian man. I'm more Christian than you are.

So how can you say you are more Christian than someone else.....unless you've got something you're boasting in?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So how can you say you are more Christian than someone else.....unless you've got something you're boasting in?

This argument also works on Calvinists, in that it challenges their belief that they were picked over someone else which makes them better than the unbeliever. Yes, their "boasting" is in God, but it's because He made them "better" (read: "able/predestined to be saved") than the person whom God made "worse" (read: "lost and unable to be saved, predestined for hell"). They attempt to glorify God, but are just boasting in themselves.

 

[Clete]

You know Clete, I 'dumbed it down' for you already. You insisted I answer Yes-No to a very complicated question, and you did not offer to 'hammer out' precisely what it all meant before I answered you, and so I obliged you. My answer was Yes.
But it turns out that I should have never given you that answer without hammering out the details of precisely what you were asking first (my evidence? Your post), so now, let's try it 'my way' instead of your way, and then we'll see if we can come to some sort of meeting of the minds here.

Because you're completely wrong that I'm not an authentic Christian man.

Okay fine. I'm all ears...

I'm more Christian than you are.

This is not an auspicious start.

 

[Clete]

I don't think that true of the gentiles. The Jews, yes, they were steeped in the law, and it was the Jews who were tempted to fall back into law keeping. Gentiles, on the other hand were prone to falling back into sin and idol worship.


Yep, you're sure right about that.


It's a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Preaching the wrong gospel to those who are looking for the truth. I stayed up late last night talking to a neice who was here visiting her mother. She admitted she knew nothing about Paul or his gospel. None of the churches she'd attended in her past even mentioned Paul and his letters.


I think whenever we preach the gospel we have to let it be known that boasting is not allowed.
Man has nothing to boast of when he is offered that free gift of salvation. It can't be added to or subtracted from.
It's all Christ and nothing else.

Of course, each person comes with an opening ......some need they have at a particular time, and one that can only be met by our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they depressed, worried, feeling helpless, addicted? The lost are always pathetic in one area or another, so it's got to be the Spirit who opens their heart.

I'm sorry if I failed to respond to every point you made. I'm really bad at keeping track of this stuff.

I wish everyone understood that it is not necessary to respond to every point. All that is needed is for the response to be substantive, which yours is.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here necessarily. It just seems to me that my having intentionally left out any mention of good works in my list of doctrines is sufficient to communicate that they are not required. I am overtly claiming that it is list of ALL of the necessary things that one MUST believe to gain salvation and the fact that no works are mentioned directly implies that they are not required.

Let me ask you something directly...

Let's say there is a person who does good works all over the place as we all should be doing. The person genuinely loves people and desires to be a help to them and that's a huge part of why he does what he does but there's also, in his mind, this belief that if he didn't having this attitude toward others and didn't have these works as evidence of that attitude, it would mean he was estranged from Christ and was not saved. He is living out James chapter two.

Presuming that this person does believe that Jesus is God incarnate, that Christ died for the sins that would have killed him and that God raised Jesus from the dead, etc - do you believe that such a person is saved or has he bought into the wrong gospel and is therefore cursed as musterion seems to be suggesting?

My answer is that to whatever extent he thinks his good works are earning him a place in Heaven, those fleshly works will be burned up and he will suffer loss but he himself will be saved, though as through fire.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

...Let's say there is a person who does good works all over the place as we all should be doing.

It's good to hear you say that, as it is sorely lacking in the general MAD report, and this is just an 'outside' but very active observer's feedback for you all. Incidentally the bolded here is in perfect harmony with Catholicism. "We all should be doing" good, basically.

The person genuinely loves people and desires to be a help to them and that's a huge part of why he does what he does but there's also, in his mind, this belief that if he didn't having this attitude toward others and didn't have these works as evidence of that attitude, it would mean he was estranged from Christ and was not saved. He is living out James chapter two.

Presuming that this person does believe that Jesus is God incarnate, that Christ died for the sins that would have killed him and that God raised Jesus from the dead, etc - do you believe that such a person is saved or has he bought into the wrong gospel and is therefore cursed as musterion seems to be suggesting?

The former; and incidentally this is a very well put, worded and thought-through question.

My answer is that to whatever extent he thinks his good works are earning him a place in Heaven, those fleshly works will be burned up and he will suffer loss but he himself will be saved, though as through fire.

Basically agreed, in sentiment if not in every detail.