toldailytopic: Do good works play a part in your salvation?

[serpentdove]

[James 2:14]

"James continues his series of tests by which his readers can evaluate whether their faith is living or dead...This passage contains the composite test—the one test that pulls the others together: the test of works, or righteous behavior that obeys God’s Word and manifests a godly nature (cf. 1:22–25). James’ point is not that a person is saved by works (he has already strongly and clearly asserted that salvation is a gracious gift from God; 1:17,18; cf. Eph. 2:8,9), but that there is a kind of apparent faith that is dead and does not save (vv. 14,17,20,24,26; cf. Matt. 3:7,8; 5:16; 7:21; 13:18–23; John 8:30,31; 15:6). It is possible James was writing to Jews (cf. 1:1) who had jettisoned the works righteousness of Judaism but, instead, had embraced the mistaken notion that since righteous works and obedience to God’s will were not efficacious for salvation, they were not necessary at all. Thus, they reduced faith to a mere mental assent to the facts about Christ."
MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Jas 2:14

"God's first concern is not what the church does, it is what the church is. Being must always preceded doing, for what we do will be according to what we are. To understand the moral character of God's people is a primary essential in understanding the nature of the church. As Christians we are to be a moral example to the world, reflecting the character of Jesus Christ." Ray C. Stedman, Body Life: The Church Comes Alive (Glendale, CA.: Regal, 1972), p. 13.

"Paul spoke about the root of faith (Eph 2:8). James spoke about the fruit of faith (Jas 2:17-18)." ~ Adrian Rogers

See:

A Scriptural Response to: Biblical Evidence or Catholics St. Joseph Communication

 

[Town Heretic]

Note again that I cannot keep up with such long posts. If they continue I'll likely have to cut out quite a bit.

As per our side bar I'm discontinuing here certain you understand I take exception to nearly everything you've set out, but comfortable with what I've advanced for my part as you doubtless are of yours.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Fine with me, but if you plan on again inferring that I am a Pelagian sometime in the future (as you have in this thread, despite our previous conversations) then you should take it up with my last post rather than starting from scratch. We've been through this a few times, and I think the key questions have again been laid out. If you'll not answer them now then they should be the first place you look next time you accuse me of such. I'll not start the topic from scratch yet again.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Fine with me, but if you plan on again inferring that I am a Pelagian sometime in the future (as you have in this thread, despite our previous conversations)

I'd say the distinction doesn't amount to much, practically, as I set out in private along with the reasoning. Why you couldn't simply take the last word given my last amounted to a general objection and recognition that you feel as justified, is beyond me.

If you'll not answer them now then they should be the first place you look next time you accuse me of such. I'll not start the topic from scratch yet again.

Beans.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I'd say the distinction doesn't amount to much, practically, as I set out in private along with the reasoning. Why you couldn't simply take the last word given my last amounted to a general objection and recognition that you feel as justified, is beyond me.


Beans.

:e4e:

What do you mean "beans"? Don't call me a Pelagian again without first addressing the points made here (which are the same as those made in prior conversations). If, in future conversation, you continue to paint my position as "earning salvation," then I'll simply point you back here and ignore those sort of comments that started us out here. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

What do you mean "beans"? Don't call me a Pelagian again without first addressing the points made here (which are the same as those made in prior conversations). If, in future conversation, you continue to paint my position as "earning salvation," then I'll simply point you back here and ignore those sort of comments that started us out here. :idunno:

What I've said is, that if your acts are the condition upon which your salvation hinges, if you control the outcome, the distinction isn't much of one. I did reference our side bar where I set that out. As to the notion of me dodging or refusing questions, leaving off the last where I noted a great deal of rehash and chose to stop the proceedings for my part: that's where the beans come in. Clearer? (and yes, the smiley is reflective of my actual state of being, so there's no misunderstanding)

And I've never used Pelagian, let alone called anyone by it. D supra)

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

What I've said is, that if your acts are the condition upon which your salvation hinges, if you control the outcome, the distinction isn't much of one. I did reference our side bar where I set that out. As to the notion of me dodging or refusing questions, leaving off the last where I noted a great deal of rehash and chose to stop the proceedings for my part: that's where the beans come in. Clearer? (and yes, the smiley is reflective of my actual state of being, so there's no misunderstanding)

And I've never used Pelagian, let alone called anyone by it. D supra)

:e4e:

The standing question requires you to actually make the distinctions between my position, your position, and Calvinism, which you apparently think exists. I honestly don't care whether you answer it here or not, I just want to avoid yet another discussion where that question is left open ended.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

Townie and zippy, it looks like you guys are done with your discussion but I just caught the end here about Pelagianism. If you're interested....

How are you guys defining it?

 

[zippy2006]

Townie and zippy, it looks like you guys are done with your discussion but I just caught the end here about Pelagianism. If you're interested....

How are you guys defining it?

That's the question.

TH started out by saying that I think I can earn salvation by my own efforts and ended by saying that salvation must be wholly uncontrollable--humans cannot control it in the least negative or positive way. I noted in my last post that the uncontrollable idea is simply a Calvinistic Election and is incorrect.

But Pelagianism is different for different people. AMR would probably say that Calvinism and Pelagianism are the only two options at bottom. I would say (along with Catholicism) that there is a middle position where the human can freely choose to either accept or reject grace as gift. (simplified but essentially accurate) I think a Calvinist would call Catholics Pelagians or semi-Pelagians.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Townie and zippy, it looks like you guys are done with your discussion but I just caught the end here about Pelagianism. If you're interested....

How are you guys defining it?

Hi kmo. In a nutshell: a man may accept grace by an act of will, but that acceptance should not be confused with a meritorious act any more than taking a five dollar bill offered you should be construed as in some part earning it. Past that point I believe you are no longer your own, that you can no more reject salvation than you can change your DNA. I'm not suggesting an absence of reward differing among the faithful any more than I'd suggest we shouldn't perform good works/yield good fruit, but zip and I differ on why we should do that...just as we differ on our ownership past the point where we find ourselves in the company of the thief on the cross, in parallel. I would say the Catholic stance is necessarily semi Pelagian, though I understand the Catholic position to be that meritorious works accrue only to those acting in a state of grace. My part differs from the Calvinist position in that I believe every man is called and all are free to embrace the cross. I think a confusion over God and time has led to a great deal of fruitless and harmful distinction among the various camps, but that's another thread.


:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

I would say the Catholic stance is necessarily semi Pelagian, though I understand the Catholic position to be that meritorious works accrue only to those acting in a state of grace.

That's false, and since I've pointed it out before I'll just note that a few quick searches probing Catholic doctrine would demonstrate its falsity. (essentially we believe that man is responsible for his actions, that no act can bring merit with respect to salvation, and that mortal sin is a completely different beast than failing to do a good work)

My part differs from the Calvinist position in that I believe every man is called and all are free to embrace the cross.

This is also a Catholic/orthodox position. We only differ on whether the $5 bill can be returned; on whether a promise to marry is the marriage itself; on whether grace must be accepted once or constantly.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

That's false, and since I've pointed it out before I'll just note that a few quick searches probing Catholic doctrine would demonstrate its falsity. (essentially we believe that man is responsible for his actions, that no act can bring merit with respect to salvation, and that mortal sin is a completely different beast than failing to do a good work)

Like I said, kmo:

"Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ...The Catholic Church does not teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are not meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace--that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6)--only these good deeds work toward our salvation..."

From: Frequently Asked Questions About The Catholic Church Columbia.edu

"I believe every man is called and all are free to embrace the cross."

This is also a Catholic/orthodox position.

I didn't say that it wasn't. It's only a part of the picture, however.

We only differ on whether the $5 bill can be returned;

A rather huge difference.

on whether a promise to marry is the marriage itself;

No. We apparently differ on when one is married/saved. A huge difference then.

on whether grace must be accepted once or constantly.

As I set out, it's a question of ownership. We differ on the answer.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Like I said, kmo:

"Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ...The Catholic Church does not teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are not meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace--that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6)--only these good deeds work toward our salvation..."

From: Frequently Asked Questions About The Catholic Church Columbia.edu

And what if we look at actual Catholic documents instead of a general statement from Columbia? :think:

17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God's saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.

19.We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God's judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God's grace.

25.We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

- "Catholics ..teach as do Lutherans, that nothing prior to the free gift of faith merits justification and that all of God's saving gifts come through Christ alone" (USA, no. 105).

- "But the Council excludes the possibility of earning grace - that is, justification - (can. 2; DS 1552) and bases the earning or merit of eternal life on the gift of grace itself, through membership in Christ (can. 32: DS 1582). Good works are 'merits' as a gift. Although the Reformers attack 'Godless trust' in one's own works, the Council explicitly excludes any notion of a claim or any false security (cap. 16: DS 1548f). It is evident ..that the Council wishes to establish a link with Augustine, who introduced the concept of merit, in order to express the responsibility of human beings, in spite of the 'bestowed' character of good works" (LV:E 66).

We only differ on whether the $5 bill can be returned;

A rather huge difference.

And one which has nothing to do with merit. :idea:

No. We apparently differ on when one is married/saved. A huge difference then.

Indeed we differ on that. God was never unclear about what's what.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

And what if we look at actual Catholic documents instead of a general statement from Columbia? :think:

A respected institution and a bit penned in defense and support of Catholic dogma by the good folks of the Augustine Club--itself a respected group. It came up in direct inquiry on the point. A probing point you suggested without any further, particular caveat.

Now if I've been mistaken and Catholics believe that works play no role in salvation, but only reflect our walk in grace I'm as happy as I can be to hear it. If they believe that their actions, following the receipt of grace, can lead to their damnation, I'm sorry to hear it.

God was never unclear about what's what.

I've never doubted God's understanding. lain:

 

[zippy2006]

A respected institution and a bit penned in defense and support of Catholic dogma by the good folks of the Augustine Club--itself a respected group. It came up in direct inquiry on the point. A probing point you suggested without any further, particular caveat.

I've no problem with the quote you gave, but it is too vague for our current topic. Hopefully the official writings I noted help clarify those vague areas.

Now if I've been mistaken and Catholics believe that works play no role in salvation, but only reflect our walk in grace I'm as happy as I can be to hear it.

We believe that no merit on our part is involved in salvation. You've continually conflated works with merit in this thread, but also justification with salvation. Once those biblical distinctions are meted out your criticisms tend to fall away.

If they believe that their actions, following the receipt of grace, can lead to their damnation, I'm sorry to hear it.

You might also be sorry to hear that the Bible is rather clear on this point of falling away after the initial promise is made. I've given verses throughout that haven't elicited a response, I could dig them up if you like.

I've never doubted God's understanding. lain:

So what do you have to say about those facts that are in tension with your own position? :idunno:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I've no problem with the quote you gave, but it is too vague for our current topic. Hopefully the official writings I noted help clarify those vague areas.

You sure seemed to have a problem...makes your complaint a bit peculiar, but okay.

We believe that no merit on our part is involved in salvation.

I don't either.

You've continually conflated works with merit

No I haven't.

but also justification with salvation.

Again, no. I was clear in illustrating my accord with Websters and my intent to speak to the point, not enter into a theological parsing.

You might also be sorry to hear that the Bible is rather clear on this point of falling away after the initial promise is made.

I know you believe that and read scripture in that context. But then we once went round and round about whether the Bible was clear on works as a command/obligation or illustration/aid. I suppose that's why not everyone is Catholic or Protestant.

But, again, I only addressed you on this point, having called the matter between us for reasons you're well aware of, because you decided to tell kmo my mind...to borrow from My Cousin Vinny, in paraphrase, if you're going to do that you need to get it right.

:e4e:

Anything else, KMO?

 

[zippy2006]

You sure seemed to have a problem...makes your complaint a bit peculiar, but okay.

Insofar as you used it to imply a falsity I had a problem with it. In itself I don't think it is problematic.

You've continually conflated works with merit

No I haven't.

Then I'm not sure why you quoted Columbia and bolded a section speaking about the place of works with respect to salvation while trying to uphold the idea that Catholicism is "semi-Pelagian." :think::idunno:

Again, no. I was clear in illustrating my accord with Websters and my intent to speak to the point, not enter into a theological parsing.

I answered your misunderstanding in my reply. :idunno:

The crux of the issue between us here is not Pelagianism, nor does it have much to do with Catholicism's differences with Protestantism. The crux is that conflation of justification and salvation which leads to (among the other confusions in this thread) the idea that sin exists in Heaven. That position is endorsed by neither Catholicism nor Protestantism. It leads you to overlook the role of sanctification in salvation and interpret that sanctification as some sort of meritorious act by humans that earns justification or salvation. That's not what it is.

I know you believe that and read scripture in that context. But then we once went round and round about whether the Bible was clear on works as a command/obligation or illustration/aid. I suppose that's why not everyone is Catholic or Protestant.

Maybe you ought to consider the idea that God's understanding is different from your own :idunno:

So what do you have to say about those facts that are in tension with your own position? :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

Insofar as you used it to imply a falsity I had a problem with it. In itself I don't think it is problematic.

I think you're being a revisionist, but again, okay (except for the falsity bit).

Then I'm not sure why you quoted Columbia and bolded a section speaking about the place of works with respect to salvation while trying to uphold the idea that Catholicism is "semi-Pelagian." :think::idunno:

I already told you why.

I answered your misunderstanding in my reply. :idunno:

I know that you believe you did. I'm unconvinced. And I'm not going to play a one sided hand with you, so, as I said, we'll discuss other things but I've already gone further than I should here.

:e4e:

Maybe you ought to consider the idea that God's understanding is different from your own :idunno:

That's what the Church of Christ would say to you, the Baptist would say to the Methodists, and almost every Christian faith to the LDS.

 

[kmoney]

Thanks for answering guys. I see you've both started to run with it again. :chuckle: I'll take time to reply tomorrow. :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Thanks for answering guys. I see you've both started to run with it again. :chuckle: I'll take time to reply tomorrow. :e4e:

Looking forward to it...:think: And zip, we differed on a bit more. For instance, on the thief on the cross and whether one could be saved by faith alone. A few things like that. And I never said that sin exists in Heaven, I addressed the unlikely notion of moral perfection in an imperfect creature. I'd be interested in your explanation of the rebellion of angels in that context.

I don appreciate the clarification on a few dogmatic points of Catholic faith though. :thumb: