Conditions For Salvation

[Mr. Darby]

Pardon me for keeping this brief.

There seems to be still more confusion regarding what "works" means when it is being used. I know you are saying that you are saying it in the same way I am, but your explanations are suggesting that that is not the case. But also there seems to be even more confusion as to what Purgatory is.

In 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly align to 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin. (I know the Maccabees is not in the Protestant Bible, but this brings in a whole different discussion. Let's stick to the subject of Sola Fide before we get into the 7 books). You're right that this is in regards to the Resurrection, but it's of the Resurrection of the dead. This is aligned with what Purgatory is.

Friend...the Bible IS aligned with Catholic doctrine. The Bible was compiled by Catholic scholars in the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo. The first printed Bible was made under the Catholic Church--printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church by Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know I'm not getting into even more and more, and I'm not trying to side track, but in order to defend on case in regards to the Catholic Church, I have toe defend another part in order to allow validity. As for Semiramis, this is a completely different subject.

The Bible does not claim to be a Roman Catholic book. It claims a Jewish origin for itself, and was written by Jewish writers. Romans 3:1,2 says,

'1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God.'

 

[LysanderShapiro]

The Bible does not claim to be a Roman Catholic book. It claims a Jewish origin for itself, and was written by Jewish writers. Romans 3:1,2 says,

'1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God.'

I'm not suggesting the Bible is strictly a Catholic Book (meaning not profitable to Christian doctrine outside of Catholicism or its Jewish origins). What I am saying--and this is a fact--is that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church. When I say the Bible, I am talking about the compilation of scripture.

 

[Mr. Darby]

I'm not suggesting the Bible is strictly a Catholic Book (meaning not profitable to Christian doctrine outside of Catholicism or its Jewish origins). What I am saying--and this is a fact--is that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church. When I say the Bible, I am talking about the compilation of scripture.

I would not agree that that is a fact. Consider this, Church Fathers of the Second Century believed in some radically different things than the modern Catholic Church as it exists today. Premillennialism, no prayers to Mary, no Papacy, ect. However, these early writers were quoting New Testament writings that the 2nd Century churches recognized as the genuine writings of the apostles. However, I would not agree that these early churches were the Roman Catholic Church.

BTW, did you see my post # 92 in relation to a Christian and works?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I would not agree that that is a fact. Consider this, Church Fathers of the Second Century believed in some radically different things than the modern Catholic Church as it exists today. Premillennialism, no prayers to Mary, no Papacy, ect. However, these early writers were quoting New Testament writings that the 2nd Century churches recognized as the genuine writings of the apostles. However, I would not agree that these early churches were the Roman Catholic Church.

BTW, did you see my post # 92 in relation to a Christian and works?

Not at all. The modern Church Fathers are consistent with the teachings of the early Church. Marian prayers (not worship to clarify--the Church has never supported worshiping Mary), and yes, the Papacy ever since Peter. One of Peter's disciples was Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." This was dated back from 110 AD.

One argument I've heard of Ignatius of Antioch is that his letters were forgeries. There were (I think) 15 letters. About 6 of them aren't confirmed to be forged, but it's true that they also aren't confirmed to by genuine. However, the remaining 9 (again, I think it's 9) are confirmed be both Catholic and Protestant scholars to be genuine--and one of those letters is the one to the Smyrnaeans.

I think we're getting off topic. I'm having a tough time responding to everyone's responses and defenses. I may have missed 92. Let me check it out. I have a feeling I missed quite a lot. I'm doing my best to respond.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Belief in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation, Lysander. Yes, it really is that simple. (John 3:16) What happens to those who have believed and are saved, but do not live as they should? The scripture tells us. They are not lost, since salvation has nothing to do with works at all.
1. A sinning Christian can be turned over to Satan in this life for the destruction of the flesh. In Corinth, there was a Christian living a life that would have even been considered shameful among the heathen. What did Paul say concerning him? I Corinthians 4:4,5,

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Notice what will happen to a man who has faith, but is not following the Lord's commandments. His flesh will be destroyed by Satan, but the Spirit will still be saved in the Day of Christ. Even though the works are not what they were supposed to be, the man is judged in his flesh, but is still saved, since salvation is not based on our merit.

2. A sinning Christian can lose rewards on the day of Christ. I Corinthians 3:11-15,

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Notice several things here that are clearly stated.
a. A Christian's work, not the Christian himself, will be tried by fire. The fire will determine that quality of the work.
b. If a man's work was of the right nature, he will receive a reward.
c. If God finds his work unacceptable, the work shall be burned, and the man will suffer loss regarding the reward.
d. However, the man himself is still saved even though his works were unacceptable to God.

Salvation is determined by whether or not a man has received Christ. Rewards following salvation are determined by the man's works, after his salvation. In both instances, the sinning believers are saved regardless of their works.

Unless I'm misreading what you wrote, it looks like you have it right. A man's works (his OWN works) is meaningless. It's the works through the Holy Spirit that are important. Revelation 22:12 isn't reflecting on one's own deeds, but the deeds through the Spirit.

 

[Mr. Darby]

Unless I'm misreading what you wrote, it looks like you have it right. A man's works (his OWN works) is meaningless. It's the works through the Holy Spirit that are important. Revelation 22:12 isn't reflecting on one's own deeds, but the deeds through the Spirit.

I've read much of the second century Fathers, and from firsthand knowledge of the subject, I do not agree that they teach the same things as modern day Rome.
On the other issue, yes a Christian's good works come from the Holy Ghost, which a person does not get until AFTER he is saved. A person has eternal life as soon as he believes. Works come AFTER salvation and are not contributory to it. They are a by-product. Works have no part in saving us, or in keeping us saved. They only impact rewards. That is Pauline doctrine for the Gentile Church.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I've read much of the second century Fathers, and from firsthand knowledge of the subject, I do not agree that they teach the same things as modern day Rome.
On the other issue, yes a Christian's good works come from the Holy Ghost, which a person does not get until AFTER he is saved. A person has eternal life as soon as he believes. Works come AFTER salvation and are not contributory to it. They are a by-product. Works have no part in saving us, or in keeping us saved. They only impact rewards. That is Pauline doctrine for the Gentile Church.

I would recommend learning more the early Church and the papacy of today. I would also recommend contacting the dioceses of your town. Ask them questions. Challenge them. That's what I did. I was curious and I knew I couldn't rely just by Googling info or even reading a few books and comparing each thing I found to the Bible. I had to use Biblical references while talking to correspondents with the diocese -- both in MD and DC.

I also spoke with my senior pastor at the time along with a few of my Bible Study mentors and was curious as to what overlapped with my Protestant views and what each side seemed to be misunderstood on.

But yes, we're getting off topic.

It sounds like we are in agreement...

The Pauline doctrine is that Grace is a free gift, and our faith is the acceptance to that gift. However, faith without works is dead. James and Paul were not bumping heads--they're writings complimented each others.

I think we've gone back and forth on this multiple times. I suspect we won't see eye to eye on this.

 

[Mr. Darby]

I would recommend learning more the early Church and the papacy of today. I would also recommend contacting the dioceses of your town. Ask them questions. Challenge them. That's what I did. I was curious and I knew I couldn't rely just by Googling info or even reading a few books and comparing each thing I found to the Bible. I had to use Biblical references while talking to correspondents with the diocese -- both in MD and DC.

I also spoke with my senior pastor at the time along with a few of my Bible Study mentors and was curious as to what overlapped with my Protestant views and what each side seemed to be misunderstood on.

But yes, we're getting off topic.

It sounds like we are in agreement...

The Pauline doctrine is that Grace is a free gift, and our faith is the acceptance to that gift. However, faith without works is dead. James and Paul were not bumping heads--they're writings complimented each others.

I think we've gone back and forth on this multiple times. I suspect we won't see eye to eye on this.

I think we both agree that faith without works is dead. That is scripture, and I believe it. I think the area of disagreement is that we do not agree on what the phrase 'faith without works is dead' means. I would encourage you to carefully pore over and carefully ponder James 2 as a whole and the subject of the chapter and the context in which the phrase occurs. That said, I think we are coming full circle and are right back at the beginning where we started.
That said, I am rather knowledgeable of the Catholic Church for a lifelong Protestant. My wife is an ex-Catholic from a (heavily) Catholic country. My in-laws are still strong Roman Catholics. I have read some Catholic apologetic material, and Catholic writers such as Hans Kung and Malachi Martin. I have the official Catholic Catechism on my desk and often reference it.
I can never agree with the Catholic Church, ultimately, for one simple reason: I am a biblical literalist and a firm adherent of Sola Scriptura. Catholic theology does not stand on the principles of Biblical literalism and no arguments from the Catholic Church could persuade me of Catholicism's claims because of that differing basis of approaching the Bible. I think that the neo-Platonism of the early Catholic Fathers had a strong influence on Catholic interpretations of the Bible, and ultimately that is why it is so hard for a Fundmentalist and a Catholic to come to much of any consensus.

 

[Major]

Pardon me for keeping this brief.

There seems to be still more confusion regarding what "works" means when it is being used. I know you are saying that you are saying it in the same way I am, but your explanations are suggesting that that is not the case. But also there seems to be even more confusion as to what Purgatory is.

In 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly align to 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin. (I know the Maccabees is not in the Protestant Bible, but this brings in a whole different discussion. Let's stick to the subject of Sola Fide before we get into the 7 books). You're right that this is in regards to the Resurrection, but it's of the Resurrection of the dead. This is aligned with what Purgatory is.

Friend...the Bible IS aligned with Catholic doctrine. The Bible was compiled by Catholic scholars in the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo. The first printed Bible was made under the Catholic Church--printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church by Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know I'm not getting into even more and more, and I'm not trying to side track, but in order to defend on case in regards to the Catholic Church, I have toe defend another part in order to allow validity. As for Semiramis, this is a completely different subject.

Not at all about Semiramis. She is the explination of where Purgatory springs from not the Scriptures.

I Corth. 15:29 is NOT about Purgatory. It was about the heresy of being baptized for the dead. A practice which the Mormans do to this day for the right amount of money. It is extremely doubtful that Paul would have made reference to this heretical practice without in the same breath condemning it. The context clearly indicates a different concept.

Since the context is the resurrection it seems to me that Paul was questioning why they are continueing to baptize new converts over or in place of the dead ones, IF their is no resurrection since baptism symbolizes our death and resurrection.

 

[Major]

Haha, but "Old Fashioned Bible Thumber" isn't bad. It means you are proud of the Bible. You understand what I mean when I say the term "Romanism" is different...especially since it's actually insulting my faith, not specifically me.

It's not about being politically correct--I really couldn't care less about political correctness--but if the term is intended to be derogatory and disrespectful, then am I in the wrong for taking some offense to it as it's regarding the most important part of me? Major, you're thoughtful in your approach...I imagine you can at least understand the sentiment and where I am coming from with this.

Yes I do, and once it is know then it should be corrected.

I am not all that thoughtful at all. You see my wife is sitting next to me and if I post anything offensive the corrects it before I am allowed to post it.

Hopefully you will be married 45 years and you will know what I am talking about.

 

[Major]

I think we both agree that faith without works is dead. That is scripture, and I believe it. I think the area of disagreement is that we do not agree on what the phrase 'faith without works is dead' means. I would encourage you to carefully pore over and carefully ponder James 2 as a whole and the subject of the chapter and the context in which the phrase occurs. That said, I think we are coming full circle and are right back at the beginning where we started.
That said, I am rather knowledgeable of the Catholic Church for a lifelong Protestant. My wife is an ex-Catholic from a (heavily) Catholic country. My in-laws are still strong Roman Catholics. I have read some Catholic apologetic material, and Catholic writers such as Hans Kung and Malachi Martin. I have the official Catholic Catechism on my desk and often reference it.
I can never agree with the Catholic Church, ultimately, for one simple reason: I am a biblical literalist and a firm adherent of Sola Scriptura. Catholic theology does not stand on the principles of Biblical literalism and no arguments from the Catholic Church could persuade me of Catholicism's claims because of that differing basis of approaching the Bible. I think that the neo-Platonism of the early Catholic Fathers had a strong influence on Catholic interpretations of the Bible, and ultimately that is why it is so hard for a Fundmentalist and a Catholic to come to much of any consensus.

And that Lysander is exactly me as well. Been there and done that!

 

[KingJ]

Hi LS

Just on sensitive issue that you touched on earlier in the thread...

I can think of verses that say that the Bible IS infallible and all true. 2 Timothy 3:16 comes to mind. All scripture IS indeed God-breathed and profitable for Christian teaching...but there is no verse that says ONLY scripture or that it is SUFFICIENT.

Rev 22:18,19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Simple digesting of this verse should lead us to conclude 1. Scripture is complete and all we need and 2. that any material other then the word must be written and read nervously.

There are verses that express teachings of God outside of the written word... 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy 3:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2...

These verses do not condone any teaching outside of the word unless they agree with the word. 2 Thess 2:15 says hold to what was taught (scripture), 1 Cor 11:2 says maintan traditions as I have delivered them to you...we must agree with what Paul said / compare everything we believe outside of scripture to it 2 Tim 2:2 does not imply the 'others' will teach a different message, rather what Paul said in the presence of many witnesses for confirmation and security that no ulterior message is taught. What other reason for all the witnesses?

 

[Intojoy]

Intojoy, how could I answer that? No one deserves to go to heaven. How could I even begin to compare my judgement to God's?

This seems to be the common disconnect. When I mention works as going hand-in-hand with faith, you're expecting a measurement of some sort. I don't know what more I can do to say that's not what's being argued.

You can answer this question by believing that the blood of Christ was sufficient payment for your sins.

Or you can ask God to go easy on you because you tried your best.

Or you can let God know He owes it to you.

 

[Intojoy]

It's not "Romanism." I know this is a red herring, and I'm not trying to sound sensitive, but it's called "Catholicism" which is Christianity. "Romanism" or "Roman Catholic" was coined by the Anglicans as a way of being pejorative and snide. Let's proceed with a mutual respect. I'm not referring to you as a "Protest-ant" or a "Disconnected Christian."

I did not know that. Thanks

 

[KingJ]

I would re-think that some KJ. The part about....."I like to think of having faith as a work in itself."

The RCC attitude toward works, is not being faithfull to your wife or doing the dishes or mowing the lawn. Just sayin.......

I don't know much more then what Martin Luther pointed out on the RCC.

As for my comment there, I have given that much thought and can't / won't budge . I explained my view on it better in post # 84.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Hi LS

Just on sensitive issue that you touched on earlier in the thread... Rev 22:18,19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Simple digesting of this verse should lead us to conclude 1. Scripture is complete and all we need and 2. that any material other then the word must be written and read nervously.

These verses do not condone any teaching outside of the word unless they agree with the word. 2 Thess 2:15 says hold to what was taught (scripture), 1 Cor 11:2 says maintan traditions as I have delivered them to you...we must agree with what Paul said / compare everything we believe outside of scripture to it 2 Tim 2:2 does not imply the 'others' will teach a different message, rather what Paul said in the presence of many witnesses for confirmation and security that no ulterior message is taught. What other reason for all the witnesses?

I'm probably going to wrap this up shortly since I'm now having trouble keeping up with so many responses, but I'll try to answer what is left.

Indeed, the scriptures should NOT, by any means, be tampered with. The scriptures are infallible and true. However, what I am referencing is not adding to the scriptures. But Christ left the Church in His name as the authority. He didn't leave the scriptures as his authority--but the Church is to use the scriptures and not contradict it. And this also doesn't mean the Church is to make things up on their own. The Holy Spirit has a purpose. But Revelation 22:18-19 isn't teaching Sola Scriptura. It is teaching that the scriptures are God-breathed and should not be rearranged, added to, or taken away of text.

You said "These verses do not condone any teaching outside of the word unless they agree with the word." EXACTLY! Any teaching that does not agree with the word should be rejected. I can't stress that enough!

Again, I'm going to wrap this up because I think we've argued in a circle a few times around already, but I'm happy to give you the last word if you'd like.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

You can answer this question by believing that the blood of Christ was sufficient payment for your sins.

Or you can ask God to go easy on you because you tried your best.

Or you can let God know He owes it to you.

Indeed, I believe that the Blood of Christ has payed for my sins. This was His gift of grace. But I don't believe the only means of accepting this and receiving salvation is through faith alone. I dare not contradict the Word of God.

Ask God to go easy on me? In other words, ask for mercy? Yes--we should pray for mercy and forgiveness of our sins everyday. I certainly wouldn't suggest that we not ask forgiveness. Even though I know he forgives, this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing this.

God owes it to me? How does God owe it to me--or any of us for that matter? We are not owed gifts. But to turn this gift away--especially when he wants us to receive it, would be a mistake. My faith and what I pray to do each day in the name of my faith is what I owe Him.

I'm a sinner. I fall. I can't imagine going through another day without being with God. I can't even imagine how he loves me or HOW he can when I'm a poor excuse for child of His. But He does. I owe Him everything.

I'm wrapping this up...or at least trying to slow this down since I'm having trouble keeping up with all of the responses, but I want you to have the last word.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I did not know that. Thanks

It's alright. No harm done.

 

[Major]

I don't know much more then what Martin Luther pointed out on the RCC.

As for my comment there, I have given that much thought and can't / won't budge . I explained my view on it better in post # 84.

Fair enough.

 

[Major]

Indeed, I believe that the Blood of Christ has payed for my sins. This was His gift of grace. But I don't believe the only means of accepting this and receiving salvation is through faith alone. I dare not contradict the Word of God.

Ask God to go easy on me? In other words, ask for mercy? Yes--we should pray for mercy and forgiveness of our sins everyday. I certainly wouldn't suggest that we not ask forgiveness. Even though I know he forgives, this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing this.

God owes it to me? How does God owe it to me--or any of us for that matter? We are not owed gifts. But to turn this gift away--especially when he wants us to receive it, would be a mistake. My faith and what I pray to do each day in the name of my faith is what I owe Him.

I'm a sinner. I fall. I can't imagine going through another day without being with God. I can't even imagine how he loves me or HOW he can when I'm a poor excuse for child of His. But He does. I owe Him everything.

I'm wrapping this up...or at least trying to slow this down since I'm having trouble keeping up with all of the responses, but I want you to have the last word.

Agreed. I can not think of anything else to add to our conversation on this subject so I am going back out of it now and leave it the rest of you.

Bless you.