DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

I have never been a big fan of the doctrine of predestination, however you must admit that there are numerous scripture which talk about Christians as the Elect and that we were foreknown by God, that he chose us before time etc. etc. The best example of this is Romans 8:29-30, although it is sprinkled throughout scripture. It’s a strange dichotomy, and tension in the scriptures, which I don’t think anyone can fully understand or explain.

You say the following:

“Again, those who had “escaped” fall back into the “defilements of the world.” It’s interesting that St. Peter suggests that it would have been better for them if they had never escaped these defilements through Christ in the first place. Think about this for a second. Why would it have been better? If you believe that the next world is either heaven or hell and depends on whether you have accepted Christ or not, you would have to argue that either St. Peter is wrong (and thus the Bible) or that your understanding of the next world is wrong.

I explain this verse with the following analogy: If you are poor and have never been rich nor can even conceive how rich people live, then you are better off to die this way than to taste how a rich person lives and then become poor again, because afterward you will yearn for riches that much more. Thus our increased punishment is our own doing and not that of God’s.

You stated: “Catholics have always taught that there is some possibility of salvation for those who never know about Christ through no fault of their own, so in Catholic theology this makes sense.”

So why evangelize? This doctrine takes the urgency and wind out of the great commission. “If we get to them great. If not, that’s ok too.” And yet this directly contradicts many other teachings in scripture. John 3:16; John 14:6; Romans 1:18-20. I think that the better thinking is to assume that these people are not going to heaven and work hard toward their salvation, and then be pleasantly surprised when we get to heaven for those we didn’t reach than the other way around.

Grace Peace and Truth,

Thomas

Jay, keep in mind that not all Protestants believe in the assurance of salvation. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and the denominations subscribing to Arminianism do believe that salvation can be lost.

In addition those, such as Calvinists and Evangelicals, that insist in the assurance of salvation of the perseverance of the saints will eventually admit that one can never really know if someone else of oneself is saved.

This puts Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians in a bit of an odd position theologically. They believe in free will (like everyone except Calvinists) but they accept the perseverance of the saints (like only the Calvinists). They also accept contraception (like the liberal Christians) but reject homosexuality (unlike the liberal Christians). I know of no serious theological arguments which permit contraception but not homosexuality (though much theology advocates both and some theology accepts neither). Ah well, I get off topic...

Jay,

In the article you quote Hebrews and you talk about willfully sinning and no chance I regaining
that salvation... If you take those verses at face value. No one would be saved. We ALL sin
daily and sometimes willfully.

Are you saying if we lie or commit some other willfull sin we can not comfess that sin and be
forgiven? That we would loose our Salvation ?
Is that what you are saying or mean to say ?

I can quote other scripture that on face value
would contradict the verses you listed. We know
that the scriptures DO NOT contradict Scriptures.
It is our understanding of those scriptures that
make it appear that there is a contradiction.

Jesus says all sins will be forgiven, Except for
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Doesn't it make more sense that the scriptures you quoted above have a deeper or different meaning than if we willfully sin we can not get back to GOD ??? That would totally negate the story of the Prodical Son.

We as humans want to make things Black or White... We like formulas ....

We all sin daily and according to your article
above. those of us that have been baptised and
sin could never get redemption or forgiveness.
Those verses have to mean something else, like
someone who becomes a follower of Christ and then for one reason or another willfully decides
to reject Christ and chooses not to follow Him..

I believe a person can choose to reject God thus
they would loose their Salvation.. Maybe I am not getting or misunderstanding your point.
I hope I have articulated my position clearly ?

Grace & Peace ,

Clem

"I wanted to address this issue, which is key to understanding the differences between protestant and Catholic understanding of salvation. The question is: is it possible anyone to be “assured” of their salvation?"

Its kinda weird to hear someone who believes in Papal infalibility doubt that anyone can be assured of a place in heaven. I agree that if you turn from God you will be seperated from him forever in hell. However if you enter into covenant with God you will be with him forever. I believe if you commit sin and repent you will be saved. Notice I said repent and not confess, if you confess all the time and never repent(change) you are on shaky ground.
As for this being a key difference, most catholics think that they are bound for heaven and are never in any danger of losing any their salvation. Most the ones I have met in the Northeast believe because they did the rituals as a kid, goto service on Easter and Christmas and basically a nice persons they will go to heaven. The same stuff happens on the protestant churches except replace ritual with "I grew up in the church".
Key difference between the faith I practice and the Catholic faith are:

1. Infant baptism - you need to be of age to make that decision, a baby is innocent in God's eyes and needs to be taught and brought up in Christ.
2. Communion - We believe as John did that the word became flesh. So to eat the flesh is not to be cannbals but to live his word and his ways. In the Greek, Koinonia is used for both Communion and fellowship. Every time you speak to and worhsip him he is there with you.
3. Prayer/talking to dead saints - The Jews never prayed or requested any thing from Abraham, Moses, Issac or any of the prophets after their death. They went to God directly. Prayer to saints is similar to the way the Romans/pagans saught various gods for different needs. There is one God he is waiting for you ask of him and you shall recieve.
4. Idolization of Mary - Mary is blessed to be the vessel of Jesus and the line of his flesh back to David. However she is not God, she has no power more than any other Christian. God jealous of anything in your life that takes you away from fellowship. Every Saint, Christian, family member, spouse is secondary to God.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
1 Timothy 2:5

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Luke 11:27-28.

Stan,

While I agree that the above differences are important, these doctrines were instituted by the Church as merely the end result of the Church's view of Authority and Salvation.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Stan,

God "jealous"? Strange to attribute such a pitiable human emotion to the infinitely perfect.

Strange too that you should use the Jewish faith to support your arguments. Does this mean that you DO support infant baptism, which has its parallel in the Jews' infant circumcision, symbol of the covenant between God and His people?

Also, to paraphrase St Augustine, Mary is considered blessed by the Church more for hearing and keeping the word of God than for giving birth to the Saviour. For Catholics she is THE model of obedience.

Fidens,

Please go read your Bible. God is characterized again and again as a jealous God. Please see Exodus 20:4-5 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD . . ." If God gives Himself that characteristic why can't we also.

The Jewish faith is the foundation of Christianity. Where in the teachings of Christ or the Apostles does it refer to infant baptism or that this is the substitute for circumcision? Please point me in the right direction.

Mary was obedient in her submission of her will to God's in giving birth to Jesus, and for that she is praised, but other than this fact we know almost nothing about Mary. How she lived her life etc. So to base our life on hers as a model is kind of hard. Once again read the Bible, the true model of obedience is Christ. Philippians 2:5-8 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!" I am glad that for Protestants, Christ is THE model for obedience. Do we really need any other inferior model?

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

As a quick aside, Richard Wan’s comment that Calvinists do not believe in free will is utter nonsense.

You make the mistake of using obscure passages when there are clear passages (e.g. John 3:16, 10:28-29; Rom 8:28-30; Phi 1:6) that demonstrate that one cannot lose one’s salvation.

If you can lose your salvation, then John 3:16, just for an example, should read “that whoever believes in him at the time of his or her death shall not perish but have eternal life” But God did not inspire the italicized qualification.

But let’s look at some of your passages.

Hebrews 10:26-27;29. This passage refers to those of the covenant, not those who believe and then stop believing (as if in those cases God reneged on his promise of Phil. 1:6: being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. ) A possible (and I think correct) interpretation of this passage in Hebrews is that those who are brought up in the covenant family, for example the children of believers, who have partaken of all the benefits of the church, for example the sacraments, how much more severe the punishment will be if they do not ever believe. It has always been the case that there is a covenant between God and His people, and some willfully break that covenant. In the Old Testament, there were Jews who utterly rejected God. They deserved worse punishment than those who lived and died in ignorance. This passage, I believe, is just extending that warning to the new covenant.

1 Cor 9:27. Remember this is the same Paul who penned Rom 8:28-30. He never took his salvation for granted, but not because he thought he could lose it, because on purely theological statements he wrote so clearly on eternal security. But here he is writing on a personal level, and what he is saying is that far from taking his (once-for-all) salvation for granted he struggles to work out his salvation, to walk the walk, so as to be confident that he has it in the first place.

Hebrews 6:4-6. If this passage teaches that you can lose your salvation, then Catholicism needs to be revised. Because viewed that way, then “It is impossible … to be brought back to repentance,” teaches that if you fall away, you can not be restored. No Christian denomination, that I am aware of, including the Catholic Church, teaches that if you slide into apostasy you cannot be restored. This passage actually supports eternal security, for it teaches how ridiculous a notion it is: if you could lose your salvation then your sins, which were once paid for by Christ (given that you were at one point saved) and for some reason are no longer covered by his payment, have to paid for again, which means Christ would have to be crucified again.

Roman 11:22. This is a misapplication of this passage, which is part (Romans 11) of the teaching that the covenant has been expanded to include the Gentiles and a remnant of Jews. Paul is telling the gentiles, as a group as it were, that they too, just like the Jews, could fall into apostasy.

2 Pet 2:20-21. When read in context, starting at verse 12, or even 18, instead of 20, and through verse 22, it becomes clear that this is a warning against false teachers, who have parlayed their purely intellectual knowledge into a good life, especially those who mislead new converts.

Matt. 7:21 teaches that many have a false assurance of their salvation. This is what Paul alludes to 1 Cor 9:27. I agree with you that we must strive to do the will of God and to persevere to the end, but not because we can lose our salvation. But because it glorifies God, which is why we are here. And that any saved person will want to glorify God.

I guess the real question then is…….If you know you’re going to hell, would you still serve God?

On one hand I hear…..I can accept salvation, sleep with my neighbor’s wife, die and go to hell.

On the other hand……I can accept salvation, sleep with my neighbor’s wife, die and go to heaven.

I think I’ll take the later-- Not only for pleasure, but because it doesn’t require consideration for others.

I can do what I want, when I want, I don’t have to consider anyone’s feelings, hurts or even their poorness, have eternal life, Wow! Wadda a Country!

Look! I’m not going to slam a bunch of scripture on you—I mean if homosexuals can read the Bible and not see sin in their life and if evolutionists can read the Bible and believe we evolved from a splat on a rock—then there is no scripture in my mind that will resolve this issue….. “Once saved, always saved” – but consider this.

If God, fully understanding the nature of man to be sinful, doesn’t give us a redemptive mechanism to come to Him when we sin—I’m sorry folks, nobody makes it ‘cept Christ.

AND

If God, fully understanding the nature of man to be sinful, doesn’t coerce us to strive for a sanctified life, I’m afraid most of us would also fall by the way.

Look!—If we yell and scream, “I’M SAVED AND I CAN’T BE DAMNED” and we continue to worship our 735 BMW luxury car, our 3500 square foot Atrium Ranch and have to have every adult above the age of 18 out of the home all day to redeem the aforementioned—We are on the wrong path.

I’m not professing legalism and for those of you who need me to say it…. “It’s ok to have nice things”—but this country needs a way out of it’s sin of Idol Worship…..We need to unencumber ourselves from the ornamentation of the world so that we are free to worship God and build for His Kingdom.

If you are locked into the thought that you are saved and “you can’t do no wrong” I think your on the wrong path and conversely If the redemptive door is closed because “I loved HIM” and some time past and “I forgot HIM” then you might as well just blow up the world right now—‘cause none of us are going to spend eternity with him.

In the mean time…. I’m going to read my Bible every day, pray to God, ask Him to help me be more like Jesus and live on the promise, that through His Covenant Mercy, I have forgiveness and redemption, so I can be the person He wanted to have fellowship with in the first place.

Touche Thomas! That will teach me use CAPITAL LETTERS inadvisedly. How 'bout we say that, for Catholics, Mary is model of the obedience of a human being who isn't also God?

You seem happy to rely on the teachings of the Old Testament when it suits your argument, why the reluctance to read scripture the way the first Christians did? Would Jewish converts have been prepared to forsake the prime symbol of their covenant with God, one that they entered so soon after birth? Isn't baptism the sign of the new covenant?

I'll take it as given that the New Testament testimony of the baptism of entire families probably won't convince you, as it doesn't explicitly refer to infants. But then the NT doesn't mention the trinity either.

Fiedens,

Some points about the old testament that I think is Key..

(1.)It is the covennant made with the Jews
God's Chosen people and not with His church since
the church was not started until Jesus came to
start it.

(2). Many of the old testament festivals and practices were a Shadow of Things to come and
a Shadow of Christ. Christ fulfilled and ended
the need for Animal Sacrifices for example by
His death on the Cross. Hebrews Chapter 10
is a good chapter which covers this.

(3). In that chapter it talks about not needing
a priest to offer a sacrifice any longer since
Jesus offered One sacrifice for all and He is
Now our High Priest.. (This is why I question why
the catholics need a priest, and why he offers an
un-bloody sacrifice at every mass ?)

(4) Jesus told the Scribes and the Pharesees
that the scriptures ( The OT) spoke of Him.

There are many OT principals of Blessings and
curses that follow through to the new testament
but I think that there is the flaw or error in any church that teaches that we must keep certain OT practices if those practices were fulfilled by the death and ressurection of Christ.

So in my opinion it is only proper to follow
something from the old testament if it was not
fulfilled by Christ..

Most of the commandments were summed up and carried through into the new testament by Jesus Himself, in the verse where He was asked which
is the greatest commandment ?

So to sum it up, in my humble opinion the OT
only applies to the Christian when it hasn't been fulfilled or made obsolete by what Jesus
said or what HE did on the Cross..

Respectfully By His Grace,

Clem

Clem,
Addressing your points:
(1) Are you trying to say there was no Old Testament church now?? Clearly there was - it was the precursor to the Catholic Church and had a full liturgical priesthood. I hope I'm misunderstanding this point.
(2) Right, which is why no one does animal sacrifices anymore. So, what is the Passover a symbol of? Remember, you were required to eat the entire lamb after you sacrificed it.
(3) You should reread that Chapter of Hebrews. It does not say we don't need priests, it says the Old Testament animal sacrifices are no longer, which we all agree with.
(4) Jesus said He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. When Jesus was asked by a man what was necessary to get into heaven, he immediately said to obey the commandments. You're suggesting we should abolish the law/commandments just because it's the old covenant, but the new covenant is built upon the old and relies on the old. I do note that this is your "opinion" since this is not taught in the New Testament.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

1. Are you trying to say that the Jews were the
precursor to the Catholic Church or that they WERE the CHURCH in the Old Testament ?????
Why aren't they still the church? Because they rejected Christ ? The Jews never stopped being God's Chosen people and this is the first time I have ever heard them referred to as the CHURCH. Also, Jesus instructed the apostles to go to the Jew first and then to the rest of the world..

So is this how you reason that the Catholic church wrote the Bible. Because the Jews were the Catholic Church in the Old Testament?

2. & 3.) It also doesn't say that we still need them. They were there to offer the sacrifices... Once the ultimate sacrifice had been made and the animal sacrifices had been abolished why would you still need the Priests....?

4.)The Jews and the Christians are two separate groups. Matt: 16:18 where Jesus builds His church, your core verse... Are you saying that the church existed before Jesus started it...?

2. The priesthood was no longer needed to offer sacrifices because Jesus made One Sacrifice for
ALL on Calvary . Why would you need a priest to
continue making sacrifices when Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice Once for All on Calvary.. ?
Why do we need to keep offering a sacrifice ?
Just because the Priest Melchezadek offered bread
and wine an unbloody sacrifice the RCC says, I don't understand why an unbloody sacrifice is needed. Because an comparrison is made between
Jesus and Melchezadek. If the sacrifice made on
Calvary ONCE of ALL why would God require any other sacrifice to be made or to be continued?
It makes no sense. Wasn't the sacrifice of Christ sufficient...

Also you said Christ did not come to abolish the
law but to fulfill it... Didn't He fulfill it
or did He fail His Mission ????

Paul tells us we are not under the penalty of the
Law... We are under grace. Or are you ignoring
all the verses about us being under grace and not
under the law or must I list them for you ???

If we are under the Law then why don't we still
celebrate the Sabbath in the same manner as the
Jews were required to.? The Sabbath is Saturday
NOT Sunday and the Church had NO Right to Change
GOD's LAW the Ten Commandments... Jesus did not Give Peter the authority to Change the Ten Commandments or are you saying that he had the right to Change one of the Ten Commandments Written by the finger of God .. ?

If Jesus wanted the Sabbath changed He had the
authority to Change it While He was here but He did not do it...

You see Jay. Paul says if you break one of the Laws you are guilty of them all...

So if we are still under the Law as you claim and
not under Grace then Why is the Catholic church and Most Protestants breaking God's Sabbath ???

Jay,
Thank you for clarifying that the good news of Jesus Christ and his shed blood is that I can now work for my salvation.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
John 11:25-26

Jesus has convinced me that when I believe in him I will inherit eternal life. I am, through my faith, assured of salvation. I have no doubt that he is able to keep me from stumbling and present me blameless....

"...now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy..." Jude 15:24

Lets look at Romans 3:27:

" Then what becomes of our boasting? it is excluded. By what kind of law? By law of works? No, but by the law of faith.for we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

God Be praised forever, for his unspeakable gift. JESUS SAVES and that is why I trust Him, not my feeble works. God bless.

Other Jay,
I would argue that you are picking verses that agree with you, rather than looking at the whole Bible and trying to understand the truth. For example:

James 2:14, 26. What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him? . . . For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also is faith without works dead.

Matthew 10:22. . . . whoever endures to the end will be saved.


John 3:36. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. (Note: "disobeys" implies works).

I also recommend reading Sola Fides 1: Are we saved by faith alone and Sola Fides 2: Understanding Faith & Works. Both include many other verses that you have to ignore if you believe works are not a part of your salvation.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Also take a look at Can we lose our Salvation for more information.

Original Jay,

Does this mean that someone who wilfully sins cannot under any circumstances enter Heaven? Even if they repent 100%?

And does Jesus ever say this, as opposed to the Followers of the Way?

Harry

Jay,
Christ said "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it" If you held a contract to pay back to a bank a said sum of money, and I came and fulfilled that contract for you, could you not say that I have payed your debt in order that you do not have to?
This is what Christ was saying, he fulfilled the 10 commandments on our behalf, that is the "gospel" or good news, that it is posible to have peace with God, not through our works, for they are as filthy rags to God, but through our faith in Christ Jesus, we are saved by grace through faith, not by works lest any man boast! Praise God!! Read Romans ch.4 I do believe that it states quite clearly that we are not saved by works but by faith. So to in Romans ch11v6 and again in Galations 3 It is quite clear throughout the new testament that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works. I would be interested to see what you consider the "Gospel message".James made a great point when he said faith without works is dead, What did he mean by saying that? was he really saying that I am saved by works alone? no, he was saying I will prove that I have faith by what I do, not what I do saves me but what I do proves that I believe, and it is that belief or faith that saves me 1st and it is my works or lifestyle that shows that I am saved. I must be saved before I can do the works.
In his grip
Jay R.

Jay R.,
If you are arguing that we are "once saved always saved" then you have to explain away most of the New Testament verses that refer to this - they virtually all suggest we must persist until the end or, as St. Paul says, subdue ourselves lest we be disqualified.

The Catholic church teaches with the Bible that we are saved by faith working in love. In other words, faith and works are like the two blades of the scissors - without both you can't cut anything. You missed the bigger point made by James:

James 2:14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can his faith save him?

NZ Harry - no, God can forgive. But we can't simply expect to be forgiven if we intend on comitting the sin again. Does that make sense?

God bless,
Jay

I have questions. What about Matthew 7:21-29
This is the one where people are doing all these works in Jesus name and He responds to them in verse 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you "

God is a God of balance, He wants a change of heart. There are people going around doing good
works not out of their heart or a genuine love for Jesus but for other reasons.

They did the works but Jesus says depart from me.
God is looking for a relationship with us, not for a bunch of workers .. I feel that sometimes
the RCC and some Protestant churches stress works and give the impression that you have to do
works to maintain salvation which was a gift..

If I give someone a gift, are they required to
do something so I don't take that gift back from them ? Sometimes it sounds like that is what churces are saying about Salvation.. Is that really a gift. If I give a gift with the purpose of getting something back in return is
that really a gift or a form of bardering?

The whole point of Jesus death on the cross was to restore the relationship HE had with His creation in the Garden of Eden before the fall..

The concept of Salvation is complicated.
Is it a Free Gift ? Once we get it do we need to work to keep it or not loose it ? If yes then doesn't it stop being a free gift ?

What are your thoughts?

In Christ,

Clem

I wonder if the debate as to whether we can lose salvation stems from differing ideas on what God's grace is. Although Catholics and Protestant agree on the following points:

1. Those who are saved, are saved by grace alone.
2. Nothing we do can earn or entitle us to God's grace, God's love, or God's favor
3. God offers his grace as a free gift.

They appear to disagree on the following seemingly rather subtle point:
Protestants, as far as I understand (with probably the exception of Wesleyans, Methodists, and Arminians as they do believe believers can lose salvation), believe that God's grace is nothing more than God's unmerited favor and blessing. Catholics, however, also believe that God's grace infuses us with the power and responsibility (after all with great power comes great responsibility) to freely do good works.

Thus, in Catholic theology, when a Catholic performs good works, they have no reason to boast of themselves as it was God's grace that allowed them to do what was right but when a Catholic fails to perform good works, they not only have no one to blame but themselves - but they have also REJECTED God's free gift of grace which by Catholic definitions included the power to do good.

In Protestant/Calvinist (Arminians, Wesleyans, and Methodists excluded because I know nothing about them other than that they believe we can lose salvation) theology, when a Protestant fails to do good works, they have simply fallen and erred but have not explicitly rejected God's grace and thus do not endanger their salvation.

Strange as it seems, I suggest that a subtle difference over whether God's grace includes an infusing power to do good works leads to the a major difference on the very important issue as to whether we can lose salvation.

Dear Brothers,
I hope I am not being mis-understood on the issue of works, I do believe the elect must live a life of good works, that is simply the fruit of the spirit, and it is a natural outcome of our state of grace.The Holy Spirit dwells within us transforming us into the image of christ. My argument is with the notion that it is those works that save us.that appears to be a "new" or "different" gospel that is simply not in scripture. Lets reason together here, if we can be saved by our works than why did Christ die? he died to purchase our salvation, it is a gift of grace! praise God for his love!!. We work because we are saved, we are not saved because we work.
In His grip
Jay R.

Jay R. & Richard,

Jay R.

Well put. That is how I understand Grace and works as well. Sometimes the Catholic and
Protestant churches do a poor job in making that
distinction, thus leading their flocks to believe that it is the Good Works and NOT the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and His Blood that gets us salvation and a place in heaven. That Sacrifice IS a Free gift that we can not earn or loose by Good Works.

I feel it is up to the priest or the Minister
to make this distinction CLEAR to their flocks.
In my experience the distinction has not been
made clear thus causing confusion.

I strongly believe that it is the responsibility
of those doing the teaching to be CLEAR in what the teachings of their church IS and IS NOT..

Richard

I am curious about the statement in your post that the failure to do good works is a rejection of God's grace.

So if we as Christians do not spend some of our time Helping the homeless in a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or don't visit someone we don't know in prison or give money or some other support to a widow we are somehow rejecting God's grace ?

In other words if we can do a good work and don't we somehow loose God's grace and may be in danger of loosing our salvation. This is the first time I am hearing this concept that failure to do a good work is a rejection of
God's grace.

I agree that Good works is a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. It is a natural product of God's love in us.

Does the performance of Good works give that person additional Grace or more favor with God ?
God loves everyone. Does He love obediant children more then disobediant children ?

I like the way Jay R. put it. We do works because we ARE saved. We are NOT saved because
we do good works..

By His Grace,

Clem

Clem, as far as I understand, Catholics and Protestants do agree that good works is a result of God's grace and the Holy Spirit (so that none should have cause to boast in anything other than the Lord). Catholics and Protestants also agree that God loves the disobedient just as much as he loves the obedient - after all God sent his only begotten Son to save the unrighteous.

I have also come to understand that Catholics believe that God's grace and love can be rejected (Calvinists in contrast teach that grace is irresistible, Evangelicals teach that once someone initially and truly accepts God's grace they cannot reject it or change their mind). Thus when Calvinists and Evangelicals read Matthew 25 and how the Lord condemns those who fail to do good works, they claim that those people never had God's grace in the first place. Catholics, however, believe that this is a clear example Our Lord condemning those who reject his grace by failing to perform good works.

I admit to engaging in highly speculative behavior when I try to link the subtle difference Catholics and Protestants have over what grace is and the obvious difference Catholics and (Calvinist/Evangelical) Protestants have over whether we can lose our salvation. I would like nothing better than for more knowledgeable Catholics and Protestants to clarify these points for me. I would also like to hear from Protestants from the Arminian branch (Wesleyans, Methodists, etc...) to see how they understand this issue. My best friend (who is an Evangelical Protestant) tells me that I sound positively Wesleyan (he knew many Wesleyans when he was younger) when I share my understanding over when, how, and why we can lose our salvation.

But as far as I can see, believing that God's grace by (Catholic) definition includes the power and obligation to do good works lines up very well with the teaching that committing a mortal sin is a total rejection of God's grace and thus directs the soul towards damnation until repentance occurs.

I am unsure where Anglicans stand on this issue, though I suspect their position may resemble the Catholic one. CS Lewis seems to have believed very strongly it was possible for a convert to stray permanently from the flock - highly interesting considering that he's a real favorite among Evangelical Christians.

The reason why people ask the question ("Can I lose my salvation?") or even care for the answer is because they are (or were) saved, and have sinned and want to know the answer to a more personal question, "Is there any hope for me now? Can I come back to God? Will God ever let me into heavan now?"

Look at your own answer to this question and ask another question, "Does my answer to the sinner's questions draw him/her TO God or AWAY from God?"

If your answer draws people AWAY from God (people who are SEEKING God), then you aren't on God's team.

Brian

In response to the comments, that I read at the top of this site, have you ever considered that in translation somethings are lost or misplaced. That sometimes happens by accident, or even on purpose. Predestination may not apply to a person, but rather to all men or mankind as a group.

All:

Person A attends church, has a genuine concern for his neighbor, helps the poor out of genuine charity, trains his children up in the church and is faithful to his wife, confesses his sins and genuinely repents, has no habitual sins or less and less of them as he grows, but sometimes struggles with his faith wondering if God is really there, and is open to others about his sometimes lack of faith, he has doubts but remains faithful

Person B has no doubt of God's existence, he believes in Christ's divinity and that He died on the cross to save the world and is coming again, he confess this faith to men, puts his trust in Christ for his salvation and knows he can't work his way to heaven, has sin in his life that he sometimes confesses and ask forgiveness for but just doesn't let go of it, he keeps doing it because deep inside he knows he can't go to hell for it because he has been saved, has little concern for the poor or his neighbor out of true charity, regularly condemns others because of their sins and their wrong beliefs, doctrines or worship

Reading from the Gospel's and what Jesus said and commands, who do you expect to see in Heaven and why? A or B

Look forward to your reasoned comments...

skelly

skelly,
In the scenarios above and with the little information given about the two persons it seems that I would be more likely to expect to see Person A. The reason being is that Person A, in word and deed, is striving for holiness by following the commands of Christ despite his spiritually dark times in wondering if God is "really there." Faith is not just a warm and fuzzy feeling. Faith combined with reasoning allows us to live our faith by "knowing" that God is there even if we don't always "feel" like God is there. Basing our faith on emotion alone is like a plant with no root.

On the other hand, Person B seems to be saying that right things, but his beliefs and actions betray him. First of all he unfortunately been sold a lie in that one cannot lose their salvation. As in 1 John 1 8-10, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar: and his word is not in us." In theory Person B probably does not want to sin because he loves God, but in reality sin cannot be avoided totally. In addition, he holds on to sin in while acting contrary to what Christ expects of us. This situation is difficult since we have to distinguish the severity of the sin and his level culpability.

In all, we (as humans) ultimately don't and can't know with absolute certainty who will go to heaven. The Catholic Church leaves final judgement to God and God alone. However, in the Catholic Church we have the Magisterum to guide us infallibly in the area of faith and morals as to what constitutes sin versus a "sin unto death" so that we may have a moral certainty of salvation. As in 1 John 5:16, regarding a sin unto death: "He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. 5:17. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death."

I hope that my response was somewhat helpful to you. Please let me know if you would like any clarifications.
In truth,
Matthew

Matthew
I understand your response.

I don't know that many A's but I sure know a lot of B's from all sides and perspectives.

Didn't Jesus say that you must be humble to enter heaven?

We all, including myself, love to point out the speck in another's eye, while the other has to keep ducking everytime we turn around, so that the beam protruding from our own eye doesn't hit them upside the head.

Thanks
skelly

Amen to that skelly! We sometimes are the ultimate Pharisees, but that is why the sacrament of confession (or penance) is so important for me as a Catholic. Before I go to confession I do an examination of my thoughts, behaviors, habits, etc. Then I pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance in making a good confession. When I speak with the priest I confess all those things that I have allowed to interfere with my relationship with Christ as He would have me live. This is a humbling and profound experience. The priest listens intently and always provides sound advice for eliminating the occassions for sin in the future. Lastly, the absolution for my sins by the power of God through the ministry of the Church provides sanctifying grace needed to assist me in avoiding my sinful tendencies. I believe that the more that one enters the confessional the better you can identify areas where sin is problematic and hopefully over time, as one cooperates with God's grace, the sinful thoughts, actions, or behaviors will be eliminated. This is what I meant when I spoke of striving for holiness--basically living as God would have me in all things. In doing so there is less of a tendency to focus on the speck on your brother/sister's eye and focus on the massive plank in our own.
In Truth,
Matthew

the Bible tell us that for by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God. eph.2:8

Unad,
I say Amen to your scripture quote! Now what is your point may I ask?
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew, I suspect that Unad is using Ephesians 2:8-9 to prove that the Roman Catholic Church "teaching" that salvation comes by ones good deeds contradicts the Bible. It appears to be a genuine attempt to save us Catholics from the fires of hell which await those who reject the doctrine of salvation by grace.

Though I sometimes wonder what Unad would say to the idea that we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Burnt,
Yes, I know exactly where Unad was heading, but I was trying to draw him out to see if he could articulate his viewpoints. It is interesting that Protestants always seem to have dyslexia when it comes to verse 10 of Ephesians 2, isn't it?

Post a comment