Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper
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. :)

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

822 posted on 01/09/2006 3:55:03 PM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus
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.

I admit I was ready to pounce with your own verse in #742 -

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5)

LOL! But, since these are Paul's words, I suppose you escape....FOR NOW! :) Seriously, perhaps we can now say that you and I agree that Paul's writings used a plain meaning approach to the meaning of the word "works", and professed that good works done to earn anything would not earn salvation.

Now we just have this "deeds of Love necessary for salvation" paradigm to examine. Rather than have me start by accusing, I think it would be more Christian of me to let you say your peace first. :) I know you must mean to include the sacraments as deeds of love, not done for the purpose of earning anything. I'd like to know how "works" (not required for salvation) are distinguished from "deeds of Love" (necessary for salvation). Is it counted by God as whatever is in the heart of the person at the time? I ask because any two people could have completed the same good deed or act, with one doing it for the thought of profit and the other doing it out of love. Is this part of the mix?

Also, as Catholic doctrine states, initial justification (what you call "being saved" upon Baptism) is strictly based on our faith ...

Not to nitpick, but if your "close-parens" is where you want it, I would just note that as a Southern Baptist, I believe that baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

The Scriptures (both OT and NT) talk about a person's name being blotted out of the book of Life!

I don't doubt you, do you have any examples off the top of your head?

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".

That's what faith in God's promises is all about. :) You can know, Jo Kus. When you first prayed, did you just let go and open your heart completely? In your mind, did you stand there naked before God and say "Here I am God, I am nothing, you are everything, please save me?" With everything that you knew, did you believe on Him? That He died for your sins and was raised from the dead? Did you say "Lord Jesus be my master"? You can know, Jo Kus. All you have to give, is everything you have. You know what that feels like when you have done it. God knows our hearts first. God shows us that we can know our own hearts too, and be sure! :)

873 posted on 01/09/2006 11:02:56 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson