Catholic Canons of Justification

[Charles Sloan]

I again would like to examine the decrees from the Council of Trent, namely the catholic canons on justification. These decrees reveal that the roman church does not believe in justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ and his work upon the cross, but faith plus our good works. You will notice some canons will even clearly say that we earn salvation and eternal life through doing good works.

Now understandably, in the book of James it states "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (cf. Jam 2:24), but in the very verse preceding this that James says "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" (cf. Rom 4:3-5). So God declared Abraham righteous before doing any work, but the works made his faith perfect or complete (cf. Jam 2:22).

So the discussion here isn't if works are necessary, or if real faith will produce works; but if you are cursed by God for believing that we are justified by grace through faith alone; and not through our works.

I am not going to go through all 33 canons, since not all are speaking to this issue. But if you would like to review all the canons they can be found here:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Here is my favorite, unless you believe you are saved through faith plus works (meaning you are not saved simply though faith alone, but you must co-operate in addition to faith to earn grace) you are anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

If you believe you are justified by faith in Christ you are anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

This canon again curses those who believes in justification by faith, and not by works.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

This is another great one, if you believe that once you are born again that you have assurance that you are predestined (for example like Paul in: Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11) you are anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

So if you believe that you have the gift of perseverance (meaning that God works in you, cf. Phl 2:13) you are anathema.

Unless of course you were revealed the someplace other than the Bible...

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

So again we see that salvation is not by grace, but is conditional by keeping the commandments (or by works). This false belief system was dealt with by the Apostles in Acts 15 when men said the Gentiles needed to keep the commandments of Moses to be saved. And the Apostles said that the Gentiles were saved by the "purifying their hearts by faith.", and that placing them under the commandments for salvation was "tempting God".

So in this effect would make the Apostles and anyone who agreed with them, anathema.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

This is just an ugly way to look at the Savior, imo. Jesus says "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?", if he is your Lord then you do as he says. But Jesus is not a legislator issuing edict and commandments like the roman church for people to follow to be saved.

Jesus is the Redeemer, and if he is your redeemer you will listen to his words.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

So if you believe that good works are the fruit of your justification, and doesn't merit your justification you are anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

If you believe that by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves and not of works (cf. Eph 2:8-9), you are anathema.

You must believe we are saved though faith plus works.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

So in effect if you believe that Jesus paid it all on the cross, and that all your sins were blotted out by him (no need for purgatory) by faith in him; you are anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

In other words, if your don't believe that you can earn the gift of eternal life through good works plus faith, you are anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

And here is the ku de'gra, that if you say that these doctrines on justification are not the truth and you don't believe that they glorify God and the merits of Jesus Christ you are anathema. Notice also it states "by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree" (this also means if someone later disagrees or tries to change it they are also anathema).

I find most of these canons not only offensive to the gospel but to be anti-gospel since they deny the very thing that saves us and elevate mens good works to the level of Jesus Christ's redemptive work upon the cross (which is simply bereft of theology to even believe is possible).

I would like to hear your comments.

[James Rondon]

Whenever a Roman Catholic attempts to deny the charge that their church teaches and promotes salvation by works, one needs only to refer them to these canons as clear, unequivocal proof... In his letter to the Galatians, Paul reserved a word for any who would teach and promote such a "gospel". Interestingly enough, it was the word "anathema".

[Ek Pyros]

Charles has a link to that video where Sproul, Kennedy, and MacArthur expose the hidden meaning of that one Catholic document.  The one where they agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  But as Sproul notes, they leave out the crucial ALONE.  GRACE ALONE, FAITH ALONE, and IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE.

[ravenlorre]

Ugh - I just typed a detailed response to this post and lost the entire post!

So here is the revised edition:

To my dismay, I have noticed a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board since I decreased my own participation.  Charles and James have always been vocal about their strict opposition to the Church Jesus started upon Peter, but I am honestly shocked to see how many people have abandoned reason in order to make sense of their rhetoric!  Please - if you have any questions about the differences between Catholic doctrine and Protestant
doctrine - ask a Catholic - we are the only people who can answer your questions without a Protestant slant.  Going to a Calvinist to learn about Catholicism is like going to FOX News to learn about Liberals.

These decrees reveal that the roman church does not believe in justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ and his work upon the cross, but faith plus our good works.

Indeed!  The Catholic Church does not teach the doctrine of man!  Luther's compromised doctrine of 'faith alone' appeared in roughly 1517 - a good 1500 hundred years after Jesus started His Apostolic Church upon Peter.  I am sorry Luther believed that he was incapable of meeting God's standards, but his obsessive/compulsive tendencies hardly justify a change in doctrine!  A comparable comparison would be Joseph Smith's need to marry more than one wife - a belief that also failed to change orthodox doctrine.

Now understandably, in the book of James it states "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (cf. Jam 2:24), but in the very verse preceding this that James says "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" (cf. Rom 4:3-5). So God declared Abraham righteous before doing any work, but the works made his faith perfect or complete (cf. Jam 2:22).

It is nice to see that you recognize the book of James as canonized scripture - Luther would disagree.  I love the verse you included - it is a nice example of works proceeding faith, rather than the Protestant teaching of faith justifying works.  James is clear - both Faith and Works are necessary for salvation - just like both faith and works are necessary for all relationships.  If neglect your relationship with your God or your wife you will end up alone.

So the discussion here isn't if works are necessary, or if real faith will produce works; but if you are cursed by God for believing that we are justified by grace through faith alone; and not through our works.

I appreciate your research on this topic, Charles - you have been thorough and accurate.  The Vatican was not shy about condemning the leaders and inventors of false doctrine - Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and many others are held responsible for their rebellion - but are the followers of their distortions?  The Vatican and the majority of Catholics believe the followers of the Reformers who still worship a Triune God are still under God's mercy.  It is not their fault they were mislead! 

The funniest part of you condemnation of the methods of the Catholic Church is the fact that the same methods employed by the Catholic Church saved the Christian Church against the heresies of the Donasts, Dualists, Manichaeist, Montanism, Gnostics. Muslim, Catharists, Huguenots, etc, etc, etc......

I am not going to go through all 33 canons, since not all are speaking to this issue. But if you would like to review all the canons they can be found here:

No need.  Educated Catholics will agree with all the statements - many Protestants will disagree.  Charles - you have only succeeded in confirming the beliefs of all Catholics and all Calvinists and confusing all mainliners.  What is your purpose?  If you are really serious about exploring Church history I am ready and willing to engage you - let me know.

This is another great one, if you believe that once you are born again that you have assurance that you are predestined (for example like Paul in: Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11) you are anathema

How can you be 'born again' and 'predestined' at the same time?  Calvin's doctrine is illogical Charles - I appreciate your ability to preform the logical gymnastics necessary to accept it - but really, haven't you suffered enough outside the kingdom?  Come on home to Rome, my friend!

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

Trust and obey - sounds like a relationship to me.  Substitute 'parent' for God in this statement and no one would blink in opposition.  We are called to have a real relationship with God - which includes trust and obedience - rather than the Protestant ideal of trust and absenteeism.  Since when did God agree to be the weekend Father - someone who buys off his kids! 

Jesus is the Redeemer, and if he is your redeemer you will listen to his words.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

If anyone says that a mutual relationship with God is not necessary - a relationship where God alone gives you an eternity with him without your participation let him or her be placed in a reality which does not include God or anyone associated with Him or his followers.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

For those who mislead those who participate in an honest and loving relationship with the Creator or the World and the Savor of humanity in communion with His Church. let them be cut off.  If Luther's cartoon sent to the Pope regarding an 'ass playing a harm' is any indication of the direction he was leading his congregation - the Vatican's reaction was underplayed.

If you believe that by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves and not of works (cf. Eph 2:8-9), you are anathema.

If you believed that if you are only required to 'ask Jesus into your heart' and then proceed as you were before encountering Christ - you are not serious about engaging in a saving relationship with God and you will not be included in His eternal family.  It cracks me up when I listen to Protestants complain about the problem of 'easy salvation' - especially when they have no idea where it came from!!!!!

So in effect if you believe that Jesus paid it all on the cross, and that all your sins were blotted out by him (no need for purgatory) by faith in him; you are anathema.

If you believe you only need to tell you wife 'I do' during the marriage ceremony in order to guarantee a good marriage you are just as mistaken as you would be if you believe asking Jesus into your heart once is going to guarantee your salvation.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

If you worship God outside of His body (modern day equivalent - Jehovah's Witness, Mormon. Christian Science, Scientology member) you are excluded from His body.

And here is the ku de'gra, that if you say that these doctrines on justification are not the truth and you don't believe that they glorify God and the merits of Jesus Christ you are anathema. Notice also it states "by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree" (this also means if someone later disagrees or tries to change it they are also anathema).

Yep - if you choose to follow the teachings of Luther rather than the doctrine that has been established by the Church that Jesus established on Peter - 15 hundreds years before Luther suffered from Obsessive/Compulsive disorder and decided to redefine doctrine.......

I find most of these canons not only offensive to the gospel but to be anti-gospel since they deny the very thing that saves us and elevate mens good works to the level of Jesus Christ's redemptive work upon the cross (which is simply bereft of theology to even believe is possible)

Interesting - I find most of your comments to be contrary to the gospel and an open invitation to engage in a false 'easy salvation' relationship with Jesus that (surprisingly, contradicts your Calvinistic predestination doctrine) which will lead people to Hell - what is up with that?

Doh that darn Raven!!!!

Ravenlorre :)

[kensington]

ravenlore...  When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it.  Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.

I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations.  But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe.  How do I know... Cause I used to be one.  Same principle.

I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break.  Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.

But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation. 

[Ek Pyros]

With your quip about FOX you have committed a fallacy.  Because something is biased does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate as a source.

1500 hundred years after Jesus started His Apostolic Church upon Peter.

Peter has a wife. lol

love the verse you included - it is a nice example of works proceeding faith

I think all Catholics, or at least those who defend their theology here, should wear signs around there necks proclaiming, "I do not acknowledge the meaning context has on scripture."

Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS.  WORKS ARE WHAT WE ARE CALLED TO AFTER WE ARE GIVEN FAITH.  FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD BECAUSE TRUE FAITH PRODUCES WORKS.  IT IS SIMPLE AND EXPLICIT.

Jesus is the Redeemer, and if he is your redeemer you will listen to his words.

Matt. 15:3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

It cracks me up when I listen to Protestants complain about the problem of 'easy salvation' - especially when they have no idea where it came from!!!!!

Romans 10:9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Where is the "If you work hard enough..." ?

just as mistaken as you would be if you believe asking Jesus into your heart once is going to guarantee your salvation.

Haha.  I'd love to see the scripture on that one.

If you worship God outside of His body (modern day equivalent - Jehovah's Witness, Mormon. Christian Science, Scientology member) you are excluded from His body.

Too bad for Catholicism, huh?

surprisingly, contradicts your Calvinistic predestination doctrine

Charles isn't a Calvinist...

[CDHealy]

Charles:

You have made an error in your opening statement when your write, "You will notice some canons will even clearly say that we earn salvation and eternal life through doing good works."  In point of fact, NONE of the canons you cite support this interpretation you put on them.  The most that the cited canons state is that one may increase grace via the vehicle of ascetical struggle (i.e., good works).  But this is nothing more than what Ephesians 2:8-10 says, and what Ephesians 4:1ff implies.  So it's hardly remarkable.

You ARE correct, however, when you identify that the Roman Catholic view of justification differs from that of the Protestant view.  But so far in this thread you haven't made an argument that the Protestant view is correct.  You've simply assumed it (with a little sleight of hand vis a vis James).

For the record, the Orthodox do not accept the Roman dogma of Purgatory, nor do we emphasize the meritorious aspect of works to the degree that the Roman Church does.  Our view of salvation is much less juridical than the Rome/Protestant dialectic.  We do, of course, believe in justification, and we, too, preach synergy, just like the Roman Church, but our primary paradigm is medicinal not juridical.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles:

You have made an error in your opening statement when your write, "You will notice some canons will even clearly say that we earn salvation and eternal life through doing good works."  In point of fact, NONE of the canons you cite support this interpretation you put on them.

Just to point out what canon I was considering:

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

With this very statement that works merit the increase of grace and attainment of eternal life, one does not even need interpret it as works based salvation; they need only read what it says.

[CDHealy]

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

With this very statement that works merit the increase of grace and attainment of eternal life, one does not even need interpret it as works based salvation; they need only read what it says.

Actually, Charles, it does not say what you interpret it to say.  Let's read it more closely.

Notice that the "increase of grace, eternal life and the attainment of eternal life" is explictly stated to be not simply "by the good works which he performs" but cooperatively "through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is."

In other words, you are falsely asserting that the Roman Church teaches that salvation is earned on the basis of good works (or good works alone).  In fact, the Roman and Orthodox Churches both teach exactly what Scripture says, that we are justified synergistically both by God's grace and our ascetical struggle (good works), with God's grace taking precedence, but not apart from our own works.  See James 2:14-26, Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and so on.

[Charles Sloan]

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

With this very statement that works merit the increase of grace and attainment of eternal life, one does not even need interpret it as works based salvation; they need only read what it says.

Actually, Charles, it does not say what you interpret it to say.  Let's read it more closely.

Notice that the "increase of grace, eternal life and the attainment of eternal life" is explictly stated to be not simply "by the good works which he performs" but cooperatively "through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is."

In other words, you are falsely asserting that the Roman Church teaches that salvation is earned on the basis of good works (or good works alone).  In fact, the Roman and Orthodox Churches both teach exactly what Scripture says, that we are justified synergistically both by God's grace and our ascetical struggle (good works), with God's grace taking precedence, but not apart from our own works.  See James 2:14-26, Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and so on.

No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.

But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)

I believe we are saved by faith and not by faith plus works. (cf. Eph 2:8-9)

[Ek Pyros]

But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)

Might I add, the work He did while we were yet dead in the flesh...

It's not like Jesus died for people who just needed some instruction on Godly living so they could work their way to heaven (or let's say, spend less time in "purgatory").  He died for people who were already judged (John 3:18), and already dead (Eph. 2).

CDHealy, you'll notice that dead men cannot choose anything for themselves, especially life.  Life is what Christ offered; in order to obtain this life, God had to drag dead men to His Son.  Interesting that "drag" is the exact word used by Jesus for this situation.

"No man may come to Me unless the Father draws (Greek: drags) him." - John 6:44.

The Catholic Church borders on Pelagianism.  As if our works can add to Jesus' sacrifice.  It's not wrong to want to do good works, even as a proof of our faith; but works are the result of faith, not the begettor of it (much less salvation).

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It all hinges on how you define faith.

Paul goes to some lengths to separate faith and works - for the sake of the people understanding that their actions cannot merit salvation apart unless those actions are produced as a the result of faith.

Nonetheless, it seems that the Works-that-ARE-the-result-of-faith, are the very stuff that salvation-from-sinning is accomplished through.  Isn't that what James is saying?  And don't "the just live by faith?"

Further obfuscating the matter is the chronology of salvation.  Protestants tend to speak of salvation meaning that ultimate salvation from damnation at the final judgment.  Catholics tend to speak of salvation, meaning that deliverance present in our everyday lives from the trouble of making mistakes.

Then there's the differences in defining justification.  Protestants talk of God declaring us to be in the right at that judgment mentioned earlier.  Catholics talk of God making us just.

Maybe it's just me, but all I ever see in these threads are people talking past each other.  I wonder what would happen if y'all tried to do one of these threads, without using any "church words."

Nonetheless, Charles, your efforts to actually study the catholic canons are commendable.  Very few people are willing to go to primary sources, it seems.

[CDHealy]

No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.

Thank you for the clarification, it hasn't been so clear in the subsequent exchanges.  But since the Scriptures themselves teach salvation by faith plus works (see my references above), then it would appear that the RCC (and Orthodoxy) follow the Bible on this.

But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)

There's no doubt that we were and are unable to save ourselves.  If Christ had not come and put death to death for us, and paid the penalty for sin, then we would still be lost in our sins.

But it does not then follow that simply because we cannot save ourselves of ourselves that the salvation which Christ works is also something we have nothing to do with.  And since we have explicit biblical testimony that works are a necessity of faith, then they are a necessity of salvation as well.

I believe we are saved by faith and not by faith plus works. (cf. Eph 2:8-9)

Then you not only misread the Ephesians passage you cite, by selectively leaving out v. 10, you also contradict the other passages I list, especially James.

[CDHealy]

Might I add, the work He did while we were yet dead in the flesh...

It's not like Jesus died for people who just needed some instruction on Godly living so they could work their way to heaven (or let's say, spend less time in "purgatory").  He died for people who were already judged (John 3:18), and already dead (Eph. 2).

No disagreement here.

CDHealy, you'll notice that dead men cannot choose anything for themselves, especially life.

Boy, that's funny, because St. Paul talks a lot about how dead men walk around committing sins of the flesh, and walking in the ways of the world.  It appears that dead men can actually do things.

Like making choices to sin.

Life is what Christ offered; in order to obtain this life, God had to drag dead men to His Son.  Interesting that "drag" is the exact word used by Jesus for this situation.

"No man may come to Me unless the Father draws (Greek: drags) him." - John 6:44.

Well, the etymological fallacy is alive and well.

But that said, no one denies that God draws (drags, pulls by the nose, what have you).  But it does not logically follow that the objects of such drawing have no free will in the matter.  One can be dragged AND want to be and fully cooperate with being dragged.  And one can be dragged and fight it and ultimately break away, too.

The Catholic Church borders on Pelagianism.  As if our works can add to Jesus' sacrifice.

Bordering on is not the same thing as being.  In point of fact, strictly speaking the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, too) cannot be Pelagian because Pelagianism is a belief about human nature and the consequences of the Fall, and not simply about free will.

It's not wrong to want to do good works, even as a proof of our faith; but works are the result of faith, not the begettor of it (much less salvation).

Rome and Orthodoxy would completely agree here.

[Charles Sloan]

No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.

Thank you for the clarification, it hasn't been so clear in the subsequent exchanges.  But since the Scriptures themselves teach salvation by faith plus works (see my references above), then it would appear that the RCC (and Orthodoxy) follow the Bible on this.

CD,

This would be a matter of some debate, but I am forced to point out again that my op states that the discussion isn't if works are necessary, or if real faith will produce works; but that Christians are considered by the RCC anathema for believing that we are justified by grace through faith alone; and not through our works.

But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)

There's no doubt that we were and are unable to save ourselves.  If Christ had not come and put death to death for us, and paid the penalty for sin, then we would still be lost in our sins.

But it does not then follow that simply because we cannot save ourselves of ourselves that the salvation which Christ works is also something we have nothing to do with.  And since we have explicit biblical testimony that works are a necessity of faith, then they are a necessity of salvation as well.

I agree that we are involved in salvation, since we are the ones being saved; but who is doing the saving the Bible makes very clear.

I believe we are saved by faith and not by faith plus works. (cf. Eph 2:8-9)

Then you not only misread the Ephesians passage you cite, by selectively leaving out v. 10, you also contradict the other passages I list, especially James.

Not to get to sidetracked here, I would like to mention that I in no way contradict the second chapter of James since the entire chapter isn't suggesting we are saved by faith plus works but that real faith is evidenced with works. This is clear from a contextual reading of the chapter without amputating verses to support works based salvation. (Not to mention the belief that works are the fruits and signs of justification would place one in violation of Canon XXIV.)

And verse 10 of Ephesians chapter 2 only further supports the belief that good works are legitimate fruits of salvation since we are his workmanship (not our workmanship) created for good works that God ordained we should have been doing in the first place. Not that doing good works makes us his workmanship or makes us created in Christ Jesus. That would be a completely backwards reading.

[Ek Pyros]

Boy, that's funny, because St. Paul talks a lot about how dead men walk around committing sins of the flesh, and walking in the ways of the world.  It appears that dead men can actually do things.

Like making choices to sin.

Nice try, but the question you've overlooked is what it means to be dead in the Ephesians 2 sense.  Sin comes from the flesh.  We are born again when we are born of the Spirit.  Being alive, in this sense, is being made alive in Christ (i.e., being born again in the Spirit).  Dead men--those living in the flesh--are dead to the Spiritual.  They cannot choose the Spirit because they are dead to it.

It's all quite straightforward in scripture.

But that said, no one denies that God draws (drags, pulls by the nose, what have you).  But it does not logically follow that the objects of such drawing have no free will in the matter.  One can be dragged AND want to be and fully cooperate with being dragged.  And one can be dragged and fight it and ultimately break away, too.

The problem is that what God is dragging is a dead person.  Dead men have no free will as it relates to the Spirit.  Dead men cannot resist being dragged.  The process of rebirth is monergistic, not synergistic.  Faith is synergistic, but dead men cannot have faith in something they cannot experience.  That is, Spiritual life.  "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Bordering on is not the same thing as being.

Allow me to smack my forehead.

In point of fact, strictly speaking the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, too) cannot be Pelagian because Pelagianism is a belief about human nature and the consequences of the Fall, and not simply about free will.

If I recall correctly, Catholicism teaches that our works somehow contribute to our justification.

Rome and Orthodoxy would completely agree here.

So works don't cause salvation?

[CDHealy]

Nice try, but the question you've overlooked is what it means to be dead in the Ephesians 2 sense.  Sin comes from the flesh.  We are born again when we are born of the Spirit.  Being alive, in this sense, is being made alive in Christ (i.e., being born again in the Spirit).

Yes, let's talk about Ephesians 2, to wit, the following:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.  His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.  (vv. 14-16; NIV)

[By the way, let me add the Hebrews reference: "Since the children have flesh and blood,  he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is the devil--and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (2:14-15).]

Now notice something: the victory over death accomplished by Christ was accomplished in his body.  So, when his body was Resurrected from the dead, then death no longer held power over all of humanity.  (Cf. Romans 5 on this point.)

So, even if humans are dead, in the Ephesians 2 sense, that death no longer binds them as it did prior to the Resurrection.  This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead.  If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death.  But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.

Which means that we ARE free to choose Christ and eternal life.  We are free because he has set us free.

Dead men--those living in the flesh--are dead to the Spiritual.  They cannot choose the Spirit because they are dead to it.

It's all quite straightforward in scripture.

Excellent! Then BCV me, friend.  You're making assertions without Scriptural support.  (If you want to cite the Church Fathers, I'll also take that.)

The problem is that what God is dragging is a dead person.  Dead men have no free will as it relates to the Spirit.

BCV, please.  Oh, and this assumes that Jesus hasn't freed us from the bondage of death.  But Ephesians (and Romans 7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 2) say otherwise.

The process of rebirth is monergistic, not synergistic.

Please provide Scriptural evidence for your monergism.  (And please be advised that I've dealt with this extensively with John Hendryx and his monergism site on my own blog.  Click the link in the sig line and search for "monergism" on my blog.)

Faith is synergistic, but dead men cannot have faith in something they cannot experience.  That is, Spiritual life.  "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God

Now your confusing yourself.  You being "born again" is a precursor to "seeing the Kingdom of God" (one cannot happen without the other).  But in  your schema you distinguish between faith (synergism) and rebirth (monergism).  But seeing the Kingdom of God is not self-evidently coterminus with new birth.  Care to make the Scriptural case?

If I recall correctly, Catholicism teaches that our works somehow contribute to our justification. [SNIP] So works don't cause salvation?

Yes to the first comment.  No to the second comment.

Clarification to the No: Works cause salvation in the synergistic sense--i.e., we are not saved apart from works.

[Ek Pyros]

Once again, that death is not the physical death to which you refer.

So, even if humans are dead, in the Ephesians 2 sense, that death no longer binds them as it did prior to the Resurrection.

Look at his audience: not everyone who has been spiritually dead (which we all were at birth); he is writing to and about the church at Ephesus.

This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead.  If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death.  But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.

Once again, two different deaths.  Where in that passage from Ephesians 2 does Paul write about Christ abolishing death?  (He doesn't.)  The abolition of death is a different matter.

Which means that we ARE free to choose Christ and eternal life.  We are free because he has set us free.

No; "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him." - John 6:44.

That's not an etymological fallacy since the exact same word is used in two other locations in the NT.  The only instance they use for translating it "draw" is a reference to drawing water.  Water is not enticed.  It is moved regardless of its will (because it has none).  Just like dead men.

Excellent! Then BCV me, friend.  You're making assertions without Scriptural support.

Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Numbers 15:37-39; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3, 51:5, 94:11, 130:3; Proverbs 4:23, 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 8:11; Isaiah 6:5, 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14, 13:23, 17:9; Matthew 7:11, 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24, 3:36, 6:44, 15:5, 16; Acts 3:16, 16:14; Romans 1:18-2:16, 3:9-20, 23, 5:12, 7:18-20, 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 4:3, 11:3; Ephesians 2:1-6, 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:25, 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:5; James 2:10, 3:2, 8; Revelation 9:20, 16:9.

Oh, and this assumes that Jesus hasn't freed us from the bondage of death.  But Ephesians (and Romans 7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 2) say otherwise.

Here is the irony and absurdity of this repeated assertion: Paul refers to us as having been dead.  It is a past action, completed.  If Paul's point related to or implied by (since I don't see any explicit mention of death's abolition in the passage) Ephesians 2 is that Jesus abolished physical death--that is, gave us life in a physical sense--then how were people alive before Jesus died on the cross?  After all, we must have been physically dead in Eph. 2:1 if that's what Paul's explaining.

Please provide Scriptural evidence for your monergism.  (And please be advised that I've dealt with this extensively with John Hendryx and his monergism site on my own blog.  Click the link in the sig line and search for "monergism" on my blog.)

You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...

Eph. 2:1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I'm just wondering where the verbs are which show how we did anything...

See also: Genesis 20:6, 35:5; Exodus 34:23; Deuteronomy 2:25, 30:6; Judges 14:1-4; 1 Kings 4:29; 1 Chronicles 22:12, 29:18; Ezra 1:1, 5, 6:22, 7:27; Nehemiah 1:11, 2:8, 12; Esther 2:17, 4:14, 6:1-4; Ezekiel 36:25-32; Psalm 33:10, 65:4, 139:16; Proverbs 21:1; Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 10:24; Haggai 1:14; Luke 24:16, 31, 45; John 6:37, 45, 10:3, 4, 27; Acts 11:18, 13:48, 16:14, 17:26; 1 Corinthians 3:5, 12:13, 15:10; 2 Corinthians 8:16; Galatians 2:8; Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 13:20; James 4:13-15.

You being "born again" is a precursor to "seeing the Kingdom of God" (one cannot happen without the other).  But in  your schema you distinguish between faith (synergism) and rebirth (monergism).  But seeing the Kingdom of God is not self-evidently coterminus with new birth.  Care to make the Scriptural case?

The key is the word "unless."

John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

And again, Eph2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).

Made alive while we were dead.  Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.

But let's just go to Catholicism:

Council of Trent, Session VI, CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

we are not saved apart from works.

Eph. 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Hopefully you just mean that works are integral to faith...

[CDHealy]

Fire:

I've discovered something about you, as exemplified in the PVM thread: you will make an assertion, unsupported by any evidence or argument, and then use that assertion as though it's been proven.

You go to great lengths in the preceding post to assert that I mean death in only once sense--heck, you even go into past and present tenses and so forth.  But, in point of fact, I do not mean death in only one sense, but death in all its senses. So, that takes out about 99% of your post.

The remainder is built on unproven assertions regarding free will (using an unproven assertion regarding the implications of death).

It really is useless to argue with you, I'm finding, because: a) you make no attempt to prove what you assert, but just keep asserting it as thought it's been proven, and b) you do not take your opponent's arguments and explanations honestly, but twist and distort them and then argue against the distortions (as though they were the argument itself).

Frustrating, to say the least.

But let's take a look here.

Once again, that death is not the physical death to which you refer. . . . Look at his audience: not everyone who has been spiritually dead (which we all were at birth); he is writing to and about the church at Ephesus.

You missed the point entirely.  Look again at what I wrote (which you quoted):

This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead.  If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death.  But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.

But then you completely ignore that and go on:

Once again, two different deaths.  Where in that passage from Ephesians 2 does Paul write about Christ abolishing death?  (He doesn't.)  The abolition of death is a different matter.

No, it's not.  And no there are not two different deaths (at least not what is being considered here; the passage in Revelation is another matter).  There is one death, with far-reaching implications.  You insist on a spirit-body dualism here that is not warranted, and is not Christian.  Read Romans 5: the death brought into the world by Adam was not just a physical death, though it was physical in certain of its aspects.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him." - John 6:44.

That's not an etymological fallacy since the exact same word is used in two other locations in the NT.

Methinks you do not properly understand the etymological fallacy.  An etymological fallacy is not built upon how many times a word is used, but on asserting an unwarranted definition of the word (such as some do with adelphos), which does not take into account all its semantic range.

The only instance they use for translating it "draw" is a reference to drawing water.  Water is not enticed.  It is moved regardless of its will (because it has none).  Just like dead men.

Another fallacy: an unwarranted comparison between two objects.

Excellent! Then BCV me, friend.  You're making assertions without Scriptural support.

Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Numbers 15:37-39; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3, 51:5, 94:11, 130:3; Proverbs 4:23, 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 8:11; Isaiah 6:5, 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14, 13:23, 17:9; Matthew 7:11, 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24, 3:36, 6:44, 15:5, 16; Acts 3:16, 16:14; Romans 1:18-2:16, 3:9-20, 23, 5:12, 7:18-20, 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 4:3, 11:3; Ephesians 2:1-6, 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:25, 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:5; James 2:10, 3:2, 8; Revelation 9:20, 16:9.

Puh-leeze.  At least when I BCV'ed I gave four meaty chunks.  These are just random verses, ripped out context.  Take the first two Genesis examples: they are citations of specific historical instances.  By using them to prove a point of principle, you commit the generalization fallacy.

Here is the irony and absurdity of this repeated assertion: Paul refers to us as having been dead.  It is a past action, completed.  If Paul's point related to or implied by (since I don't see any explicit mention of death's abolition in the passage) Ephesians 2 is that Jesus abolished physical death--that is, gave us life in a physical sense--then how were people alive before Jesus died on the cross?  After all, we must have been physically dead in Eph. 2:1 if that's what Paul's explaining.

And, once again, you are refusing to acknowledge that I mean death in more than one sense.  This here is the reductio fallacy.

You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...

Non sequitor.

I'm just wondering where the verbs are which show how we did anything...

Funny how that tenth verse always keeps getting left out.  Hmmmm.

The key is the word "unless."

John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

You still haven't proven that "born again" is coterminus with "seeing the Kingdom of God."  One may be born again, and the may be required to engage in ascetical struggle to see the Kingdom of God.

Made alive while we were dead.  Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.

Back to unproven assertions.

[James Rondon]

No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.

Thank you for the clarification, it hasn't been so clear in the subsequent exchanges.  But since the Scriptures themselves teach salvation by faith plus works (see my references above), then it would appear that the RCC (and Orthodoxy) follow the Bible on this.

Not according to Romans chapter 4:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are fogiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

Not "plus works"... Not with works...

"Without works".

[CDHealy]

Not according to Romans chapter 4:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are fogiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

Not "plus works"... Not with works...

"Without works".

I'm sorry, Mr. Rondon, perhaps you forgot that, as was Abraham, we are justified by our works.

James 2: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says,  "Abraham believed God, and it was  accounted to him for righteousness.

[James Rondon]

You have Paul contradicting James, and even his own self. When read in context, James does not contradict Paul, instead, he complements him.
Salvation is not the result of works, nor is it the result of faith plus works. Salvation is the result of faith "without works", as Paul said in Romans chapter 4 (see also Ephesians chapter 2:9, "not of works"). Even so, as James said, such a faith will produce works (see also Ephesians 2:10, "created in Christ Jesus unto good works"; notice, not "by good works", and not "with good works").

Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.

Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.

(By the way, "faith" being faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; cf. James 2:1)

[CDHealy]

James:

Please deal with what James actually says, not with what you want him to say:  justified by works.  That's what he says.  A man is justified by his works, not by faith only.

That's what the Scripture says.  Please deal with that.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.

Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.

If that is so, logically I can say that
Salvation = Faith - Works.

Somehow, that looks like the antitheses of what James says.

Try a logical operator instead:

If (faith) then (works)
If (faith) then (salvation)

[Harold]

Eph. 2:1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Just so I understand, are you saying we are born again before we come to the cross.

FTL

[James Rondon]

Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.

Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.

If that is so, logically I can say that
Salvation = Faith - Works.

Somehow, that looks like the antitheses of what James says.

That is exactly the point. Notice that the reordering of that equation, while seemingly contradictory to James, is equivalent to what Paul has said in Romans chapter 4.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.

Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.

If that is so, logically I can say that
Salvation = Faith - Works.

Somehow, that looks like the antitheses of what James says.

That is exactly the point. Notice that the reordering of that equation, while seemingly contradictory to James, is equivalent to what Paul has said in Romans chapter 4.

So are you seriously contending that Paul and James contradict each other?

[James Rondon]

Not at all. That is CD Healy's position.

Paul and James are looking at the same things, from different perspectives (thus, the reordering of the same equation).

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Not at all. That is CD Healy's position.

Paul and James are looking at the same things, from different perspectives (thus, the reordering of the same equation).

I'm kind of guessing that you both think they agree, but you don't agree on what they both mean.

Let me put this forward again, as a way of looking at it:

If (faith) then (salvation).
If (faith) then (works).

The result is that works are not required for salvation.  But...
That everyone whom salvation is given to, also happens to manifest their faith by works.

[CDHealy]

Excuse, me, but my position is not that St. Paul and St. James are in contradiction.  They harmonize very well.

But your position does require a contradiction because you categorically deny that justification is by works, and yet that is exactly what St. James says.

So, no, I affirm no contradiction.  We are saved by faith (there is no "alone" in Scripture, in fact, St. James denies the use of "alone" with faith) AND we are saved by our works.  "Work out your salvation," "a man is justified by his works."

That's the straightforward, uncomplicated reading of the Scripture.

Your position requires you to twist St. James around in self-contradiction.  Mine does not.  You distort Scripture--claiming faith alone when St. James denies it, denying what Scripture affirms, that we are justified by works--I don't.

[broach972]

Excuse, me, but my position is not that St. Paul and St. James are in contradiction.  They harmonize very well.

But your position does require a contradiction because you categorically deny that justification is by works, and yet that is exactly what St. James says.

So, no, I affirm no contradiction.  We are saved by faith (there is no "alone" in Scripture, in fact, St. James denies the use of "alone" with faith) AND we are saved by our works.  "Work out your salvation," "a man is justified by his works."

That's the straightforward, uncomplicated reading of the Scripture.

Your position requires you to twist St. James around in self-contradiction.  Mine does not.  You distort Scripture--claiming faith alone when St. James denies it, denying what Scripture affirms, that we are justified by works--I don't.

[James Rondon]

Excuse, me, but my position is not that St. Paul and St. James are in contradiction.  They harmonize very well.

I have seen no harmonization on your part. Only a prooftexting of James to the exclusion of Paul.

But your position does require a contradiction because you categorically deny that justification is by works, and yet that is exactly what St. James says.

Go back and re-read my posts - I have only said what Paul has said. Your argument is with him, not me... Justification is "by works", in as far as justification is by faith ("ye see then how...", James 2:24). How? A faith that saves is a faith that will work ("... can that faith save him?...", James 2:14f). Even so, salvation is by grace, through faith, and "not of works" ("without works...", Romans 4:5-6). Thus, faith = salvation + works (cf. Eph. 2:8, 9 and 10).

So, no, I affirm no contradiction.  We are saved by faith (there is no "alone" in Scripture, in fact, St. James denies the use of "alone" with faith) AND we are saved by our works.

Will you stand with Paul and say that salvation is "not of works"? Will you stand with Paul and say that we are justified by faith "without works"?... Will you stand with Paul and say "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"? If so, how so?

"Work out your salvation," "a man is justified by his works."

That's the straightforward, uncomplicated reading of the Scripture.

The one who rightly divides the word of truth will consider context, and the rest of Scripture, including Romans chapter 4.

Your position requires you to twist St. James around in self-contradiction.  Mine does not.  You distort Scripture--claiming faith alone when St. James denies it, denying what Scripture affirms, that we are justified by works--I don't.

Your position requires that you completely avoid Romans chapter 4. Mine does not. Mine leaves room for both James 2 and Romans 4, and is able to harmonize them without contradiction. Paul said we are justified by faith "without works", and that we are saved by grace, through faith, and "not of works". Even so, you would have James deny it, denying what Scripture affirms--I don't.

[kensington]

CDHealy... I think someone is misinterpreting "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12, by what you posted.

I do believe that is more along the lines of... Searching your heart, disecting your motives, waking up at night to repent of things that make you shake.... kind of thing..  I have woke up in the night, trembling to think of some of the things I did before I got saved. I believe I need to always keep that mindset concerning sin. Never to take it lightly. 

Working it out in the spiritual sense.  Staying above reproach... in all things.

Not "do works" for salvation.  We should be concerned about our acts... not doing acts to be saved.

[CDHealy]

Since there's a bunch of misrepresentation of what my position entails, let me be clear:

1. We are saved by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8)
2. We are saved so that we may do good works. (Ephesians 2:10)
3. We are justified by our works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
4. We are to work out our salvation. (Philippians 2:12)
5. God works in us. (Philippians 2:13)
6. We must discipline our bodies lest we be disqualified (1 Corinthians 5:20; 9:27).

[Ek Pyros]

But, in point of fact, I do not mean death in only one sense, but death in all its senses. So, that takes out about 99% of your post.

The point is not what you mean but what Scripture says.  Scripture makes death out to be physical and spiritual death, connected, but distinct.  That is, one can be discussed without the other being implied.  That is the case in Ephesians 2.

Once again, that death is not the physical death to which you refer. . . . Look at his audience: not everyone who has been spiritually dead (which we all were at birth); he is writing to and about the church at Ephesus.

You missed the point entirely.  Look again at what I wrote (which you quoted):

This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead.  If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death.  But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.

But then you completely ignore that and go on:

Once again, two different deaths.  Where in that passage from Ephesians 2 does Paul write about Christ abolishing death?  (He doesn't.)  The abolition of death is a different matter.

No, it's not.  And no there are not two different deaths (at least not what is being considered here; the passage in Revelation is another matter).  There is one death, with far-reaching implications.  You insist on a spirit-body dualism here that is not warranted, and is not Christian.  Read Romans 5: the death brought into the world by Adam was not just a physical death, though it was physical in certain of its aspects.

I guess I'll have to throw away my O/NT Expository Dictionary... It keeps telling me that death has many meanings in scripture, and that when it is talked about, it doesn't always include all meanings.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him." - John 6:44.

That's not an etymological fallacy since the exact same word is used in two other locations in the NT.

Methinks you do not properly understand the etymological fallacy.  An etymological fallacy is not built upon how many times a word is used, but on asserting an unwarranted definition of the word (such as some do with adelphos), which does not take into account all its semantic range.

We already took into account its range in a previous post.  Context shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters through the marriage and sexual intercourse of Mary and Joseph.  Adelphos can mean this or other things, but it does not have to mean something else when the context is clear.

The only instance they use for translating it "draw" is a reference to drawing water.  Water is not enticed.  It is moved regardless of its will (because it has none).  Just like dead men.

Another fallacy: an unwarranted comparison between two objects.

You must not understand.  The point is that the word has only one meaning or implication.  That is, whether you apply it to dragging people to court (Acts 16, James 4) or drawing up water.  It never means to draw as in to entice as we so misread it today.

Here is the irony and absurdity of this repeated assertion: Paul refers to us as having been dead.  It is a past action, completed.  If Paul's point related to or implied by (since I don't see any explicit mention of death's abolition in the passage) Ephesians 2 is that Jesus abolished physical death--that is, gave us life in a physical sense--then how were people alive before Jesus died on the cross?  After all, we must have been physically dead in Eph. 2:1 if that's what Paul's explaining.

And, once again, you are refusing to acknowledge that I mean death in more than one sense.  This here is the reductio fallacy.

See above.

You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...

Non sequitor [sic].

Haha, it wasn't intended to be a logical formula.  But since you were wrong there, and you're defending the same ideas here, you're wrong here, too.  So I guess it's not really a non-sequitur after all.

I'm just wondering where the verbs are which show how we did anything...

Funny how that tenth verse always keeps getting left out.  Hmmmm.

It adds to my case.  "That God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" - God has to give us something to be able to accomplish His goals.  Good works aren't of our own, and they are contingent and consequential to regeneration, faith, etc.

The key is the word "unless."

John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

You still haven't proven that "born again" is coterminus with "seeing the Kingdom of God."  One may be born again, and the may be required to engage in ascetical struggle to see the Kingdom of God.

Clarify what you think I mean.  I feel like you're arguing against something I haven't posited, but I'm unsure.

Made alive while we were dead.  Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.

Back to unproven assertions.

So dead men can choose life?  You seem to think the basis of my statement is unfounded; be more specific.

Just so I understand, are you saying we are born again before we come to the cross.

Define "come to the cross."  Preferably with Scripture.