I think I do understand your idea of a pure inner disposition, and the need for love not to come from a selfish source. I still do not understand the works-for-pay idea as a distinction that is used to explain that all the deeds done by Catholics to attain salvation do not count as works. Even regarding love, I know from personal experience that sometimes love can be real work. :)
Since "works" are specifically mentioned several times as not counting toward salvation, I reason that this must be teaching against some idea held by some at the time. I am unaware of any commandment or early Christian belief that we are to work for pay to attain salvation. OTOH, if we take a plain-meaning definition of the word, such as "the production of effort toward a desired goal", then that would teach against a common belief of the time, that we are saved under law. This makes more sense to me.
The Spirit and mortal sin cannot coexist. ... He has given up his rights as an adopted son - although this may be temporary. God will continue to work to bring this person back to Him.
If mortal sin equals "disqualifying" sin, then I agree with you on that part. You have said that God wishes all of us to be saved, and that God respects our choices even if they eternally doom us.
So there is a great clash between the will of God and the will of man. Who will win? You seem to say "win some lose some". Sometimes God "wins" and gets what He wants, and sometimes man "wins" (double quotes). I just see God as being so much stronger than that. I would say that God always gets what He wants because He is God. That's why I think that God does not forsake the elect, even if some of them temporarily stray.
First of all, "death" in the Bible is not defined in the way you seem to be defining it.
I've understood for some time the difference between physical and spiritual death. I know that we exist forever regardless of our destination. I still think my analogy holds.
You brought up the example of your influence with an older child. I think the analogy fails there because once the child is grown, you do not have the power to force decisions on him. I assumed the relationship between a parent and minor child because the parent does have power. (Of course God always has full power.)
If my fifteen-year-old wanted to join a cult, then I would forbid him out of my love for him. I would use whatever force was necessary. I would do this in my complete and secure knowledge that I know what is best in this matter. I am comparing this to what God does for the elect. Once saved, God will not allow His elect to fall away enough to forfeit salvation. He will use whatever force is necessary, and this is done on His authority of knowing what is best and in accordance with His divine plan.
I respectfully disagree that God sees us as adult children. I'm pretty sure that He sees us as young children (dumb as sheep) who have no idea what is best for them on anything. :)
Yeah, the Jews. They believe that one is "justified" by works and the Law. Judaism does not even require faith to be "accpetable to God" which is radically opposite and mutually eclusive with Christianity.
All Gospel references to the traditions of men and errors of teaching that work lead to salvation are in refrence to the belefs and practices of Judaism of the 1st century, not Chirstianity.
The Old Covenant was rendered "obsolete" by the corruption, says +Paul in Hebrews, by the Hebrews. The Protestants now use these same quotes directed at Hebrews to accuse The Church and its 2,000 year old collective wisdom of not knowing the Scriputres (!) save for Blessed Augustine, and for being equal to pagans (for "worshiping idols"), and what not. James very clearly states that works through faith are a manifestation of our faith. They are not done expecting "wages" in return for acts of mercy. Christians by their very faith must be merciful, and humble, as Christ was.
But that's what happens when 21st century Protestants read 1st century Gospels...
I think the word "works" is part of the confusion. When Paul speaks about "works", he generally is speaking of your concept of earning salvation. When James speaks about "works", he is speaking of doing something, but not necessarily earning something. When Paul speaks about love, he doesn't call it a work. Definitions seem to be the problem. I will distinguish between Paul's "work" as earning something, and "deeds of Love" as something necessary for salvation. Also, as Catholic doctrine states, initial justification (what you call "being saved" upon Baptism) is strictly based on our faith and not dependent on any action we do (besides repentance). In a sense, our disagreement is not as drastic as many believe. The problem, again, is your definition of "saved" and our definition of "saved" is generally two different points - you to that sinner's prayer, and us, to eternal life in heaven.
Love is "work" in that it requires difficult action, but Paul never attributes that as a "work" in earning something. Love requires picking up our cross and taking the narrow road - and love is not a burden. It takes some meditation, but it begins to make more sense when you experience doing things for others because GOD loves them, not for personal gain.
I am unaware of any commandment or early Christian belief that we are to work for pay to attain salvation
Probably because the Bible is not a historical book that records BOTH sides of heretical/orthodox teachings, but rather, a collection of writings that teach the recipients how to be more orthodox. I wouldn't expect to find within the Scriptures the heterodox teachings that command Christians to follow the Mosaic Law without regard to love! Perhaps if we had the writings of heterodox Judaizers, it would be more clear. But the fact that Paul wrote the letter of Romans makes it clear that SOMEONE was teaching incorrectly that we are saved by works of the law.
That's why I think that God does not forsake the elect, even if some of them temporarily stray.
I agree. Surprise! Of course God doesn't abandon HIS elect. The problem, from OUR point of view is "am I of the elect?" We don't know - even taking your point of view, perhaps my sinner's prayer didn't "take". The Scriptures (both OT and NT) talk about a person's name being blotted out of the book of Life! God knows our response to Him in our future (His present), so He knows that any fall we have is temporary. Thus, He certainly will ensure that we will return.
The $64,000 question is "does God base His grace on what He foresees in our response to us"? The Catholic Church does not make a defined rule on that question - there are several schools who say "yes" and others that say "no"...Can we ever know in this life? Doubtful.
I respectfully disagree that God sees us as adult children. I'm pretty sure that He sees us as young children (dumb as sheep) who have no idea what is best for them on anything. :)
Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean adult children, I was thinking of teenagers...Yikes! Young children trust their parents too much for the analogy to work for "fallen away" people. Teenagers, on the other hand, are questioning their parents (like those who are falling away). Sure, we can "force" our teenagers to not join a cult. But in the end, THEY have the choice of running away. Trust me on this... The analogy fails in either case, I suppose, because God CAN prevent us from doing something ultimately, while we can't (even with young children). The bottom line to the problem, though, is that WE don't know our ultimate destiny. Sure, we are saved upon Baptism, we are healed, washed of sins, and so forth. But to me, Christ's teachings seem to indicate that there is something more than the one-time proclamation. Luke and Matthew both talk about those who merely give lip-service to God will be sitting outside the Wedding Banquet. Perseverance is too big a theme in the Scriptures to ignore and posit them as a degree of secondary rewards.
Regards