Can Good Works Redeem Us?

[Guest Tony Atonement]

Someone on another thread mentioned to me that the Roman Catholic Church believes we are saved by "grace alone". When I asked to know where to read this claim for verification, I was not given an answer. Therefore I deny it. Does anyone wish to demonstrate otherwise? To begin the discussion, I thought I would mention what was said at Vatican II:

"From the most ancient times in the Church, good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6). That certainly does not sound like being saved by "grace alone".

Can anyone furnish any paper-trail leading back to "the most ancient times in the church where good works were offered to God for salvation"? The Scriptures of course, militate against this idea. The closest statement in time to the closing of the canon, [u]opposing[/u] the supposition of Vat-II, at least that I have found, would be Clement (A.D. 95), alleged by the Roman Catholic Church to be one of the early popes. He said, [i]"And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith..."

[/i]I also believe it is insulting to the work of Christ when Vat-II opined that we may be "washed, cleansed and redeemed" by good works (which the Pope admitted was [i]a non-infallible church council) [/i]as opposed to[i] the infallible source[/i], that it is the blood of Jesus Christ rather, that cleanses us from all sin. (1 Jn 1:7).

[elizabeth09]

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Titus 2:14 (Whole Chapter) The King James Version

Hope this works a little for you.

Edited November 27, 2009 by elizabeth09

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='27 November 2009 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1259299901' post='2010096']
Someone on another thread mentioned to me that the Roman Catholic Church believes we are saved by "grace alone". When I asked to know where to read this claim for verification, I was not given an answer. Therefore I deny it. Does anyone wish to demonstrate otherwise? To begin the discussion, I thought I would mention what was said at Vatican II:

[/quote]

God paid for the "land" on which the temple of the Holy Spirit should be built. But the temple ain't going to build itself.

~Sternhauser

[KnightofChrist]

What the Bible Says

To be saved, you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but the Sacred Scriptures show other things you must also do to be saved.

* You must endure to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.
* You must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27.
* You must be baptized with water. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5 Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21.
* You must be a member in God's true church. Acts 2:47.
* You must confess your sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9
* You must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21
* You must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
* You must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16, I Corinthians 11:23-29

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='elizabeth09' date='27 November 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1259300054' post='2010100']
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Titus 2:14 (Whole Chapter) The King James Version

Hope this works a little for you.

[/quote]


No one is arguing that Christians have been appointed to do good works, but may I say that you are missing the point and would suggest you re-read my post.

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='27 November 2009 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1259300475' post='2010111']
God paid for the "land" on which the temple of the Holy Spirit should be built. But the temple ain't going to build itself.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


No one is arguing that Jesus paid the ultimate price, and "know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16). But what you mean by the temple not building itself and how [u]that[/u] responds to my post, must more clearly be explained if I am to answer.

[Antigonos]

[quote name='elizabeth09' date='27 November 2009 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1259300054' post='2010100']
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Titus 2:14 (Whole Chapter) The King James Version

Hope this works a little for you.
[/quote]


Are not good works belief in action?

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='27 November 2009 - 02:12 AM' timestamp='1259305976' post='2010171']
Are not good works belief in action?
[/quote]

Absolutely! But what I am trying to convey is that "[u]offering[/u] these good works to God for one's self and the salvation of others" is neither biblically nor historically verified. Vatican II further stated, that there were those who, "have carried their own crossess to make [u]expiation[/u] [i]for their own sins and the sins of others". [/i] However, it is the Lamb of God who [i]expiates [/i](takes away) our sin and satisfies (propitiates...Rms 3:25) the demands of God's justice. I submit Roman Catholic vocabulary and doctrine are in dire conflict with the cross-work of Christ. Good works cannot redeem [u]us[/u] or anyone else because, "none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him" (Ps 49:7). The simplicity of Jesus giving [i]His[/i] life "a ransom for many" is obscured when looking through the lens of the magisterium's glasses.

[KnightofChrist]

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='27 November 2009 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1259302248' post='2010146']
What the Bible Says

To be saved, you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but the Sacred Scriptures show other things you must also do to be saved.

* You must endure to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.
* You must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27.
* You must be baptized with water. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5 Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21.
* You must be a member in God's true church. Acts 2:47.
* You must confess your sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9
* You must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21
* You must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
* You must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16, I Corinthians 11:23-29
[/quote]


Dear Knight,

Thank you for at least confirming that Roman Catholicism does not teach you are saved by "grace ALONE" as you demonstrate here with your check-list of requirements. As much as I am grateful for your submission of the Roman Catholic way of salvation, I must remind you that you have not directly addressed the concern of my original post. Nevertheless, in response to a few items you brought up (since I don't want to get too lengthy so as to bore you), I would agree that none of us can escape suffering in one way or another. But what irks me is Vatican II stating that "sins must be expiated"-- (taken away)---and that this may be done, "on earth, through the sorrows, miseries and trials of life." I must reject that my sins can ever be removed by such an explanation as the misery I suffer here on earth. This is not the gospel of our salvation. The gospel centers soley and uniquely on the cross-work of Christ, and to add anything else to His perfect work, such as the misery we must endure as an antidote for expiating sin, enters the realm of, "another jesus and another gospel" as the apostle taught in 2 Cor 11:4.

Second, your other requirement of being a member of Christ's true church, is also out of order when you confine the meaning of "church" to the Roman Catholic church in particular. The Bible uses the word over 100 times, and it simply means "the body of believers", and most definitely not an visible institution out yonder in Rome.

The third item I would object to, for brevity's sake, is that to be saved, "we must keep the commandments of God." No one will argue about the virtue of attempting to do this very thing, but you and I know that we don't keep those commandments perfectly and neither of the two verses you quoted regarding keeping the commandments refer to keeping them [u]as a means of salvation[/u]. The fact is, if we break the law in even one point, God says we are guilty of breaking it all (Jms 2:10). Therefore, you cannot lean on your performance in keeping the law perfectly as a [u]means[/u] of salvation because you will fail every time. Rather, the gospel entails we are to look to the "obedience of the One" (i.e. Jesus...Rms 5:19) who fulfilled the law perfectly in our room and stead and it is [i]His [/i]obedience to which we are to hang our very souls on. The law of God was never intended to save anybody, but to point out our sin and to be our "schoolmaster designed to bring us to Christ" (Gal 3:24).

[AccountDeleted]

Mr Tony Atonement - I think that your searching for the truth is so wonderful, but sometimes don't you just wonder a little what you are missing by not being able to receive the Eucharist? I simply can't imagine being a Protestant (and I was raised an agnostic) because without the sacraments, Christianity is incomplete. I love that Protestants have a personal relationship with Jesus, and they certainly know their Scripture (although not always interpreted correctly) - and that is all absolutely wonderful, but what sorrow not to know Him as intimately as is possible through receiving Him in the Eucharist. There is another dimension of relationship with Him that you just aren't able to know yet. All the debates seem a little like straw to me without that element.

No offence meant, just something I was thinking about...

pax brother

[Antigonos]

Perhaps we differ in our understanding of "works". I am not thinking of suffering, or even expiation. I am thinking of positive actions, either of an altruistic nature, such as giving to charity, or doing volunteer work, or being punctilious in one's religious obligations. I suppose what I'm asking[correct me if I'm wrong] that a Catholic who gives generously to various charities, assists the needy and/or ill, but never goes to church, or takes Communion, would find himself judged in Heaven more harshly than one who went to Mass every day, and regularly went on retreat, etc. but never gave a dime to charity or helped an old lady across the street? Or is it the opposite?

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='27 November 2009 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1259308708' post='2010185']
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.
[/quote]

Dear Knight,

I don't deny in the least that faith without works is dead. But [i]you [/i]mean the verse to imply that works are [u]salvific;[/u] whereas Protestants say the biblical evidence reveals that good works are [u]indicative[/u] of salvation.
I would argue briefly that considering the heavy emphasis which the N.T. puts on faith and that "it is NOT by works of righteousness which we have done that He saved us, but by His mercy" (Titus 3:5)---the unavoidable conclusion is that we are saved by faith alone---especially in light of Paul telling us "a man is NOT justified by the works of the law" (Gal 2:16). If it is not by works, then it is by faith alone because there is no other option. "For if Abraham were justified by works, he would have something to boast about" says Paul in Romans 4:2. But does Paul contradict James, who says "a man is justified by works and not by faith only?" No. Briefly, Paul affirms on the one hand, that a man is [u]not[/u] justified by the works of the law in Gal 2:16. His use of the word "justification" is used in a different sense than James, in that he repudiates works done for the sake of aquiring merit. John Murray says, "In the Pauline polemic, the accent falls without question on the judicially and declarative [i]character[/i] of justification". Abe was justified by faith alone in Genesis 15:6 when He believed God's promise concerning a numberless posterity. It was about 30 years [u]later[/u] that he was justified (i.e. vindicated, not [i]saved[/i]) by works when he offered Isaac in Gen 22. So when James says, "Was not Abe justified by works when he offered Isaac?"--- he is concerned with the question of how is a man [u]to demonstrate[/u] that he has true faith to avoid what you might call a "cold intellectualism". He uses the Isaac episode to prove this. Note his words, "Show me your faith" and "I will show you my faith [i]by my works [/i](2:18).... and, "You see" in 2:24. "You see that a man is justified by [his] works and not by [his] faith alone.

[Guest Tony Atonement]

[quote name='nunsense' date='27 November 2009 - 04:32 AM' timestamp='1259314363' post='2010193']
Mr Tony Atonement - I think that your searching for the truth is so wonderful, but sometimes don't you just wonder a little what you are missing by not being able to receive the Eucharist? I simply can't imagine being a Protestant (and I was raised an agnostic) because without the sacraments, Christianity is incomplete. I love that Protestants have a personal relationship with Jesus, and they certainly know their Scripture (although not always interpreted correctly) - and that is all absolutely wonderful, but what sorrow not to know Him as intimately as is possible through receiving Him in the Eucharist. There is another dimension of relationship with Him that you just aren't able to know yet. All the debates seem a little like straw to me without that element.

No offence meant, just something I was thinking about...

pax brother [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/pray.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Dear Nunsense....(I did see the play, BTW)...

I should think it would go without saying that if I thought I was missing something by not receiving the Eucharist, as Catholics define it, I would have remained Catholic. Anywho, I would have to disagree with your assumption that Christianity is "incomplete" without the sacraments that Catholicism bids us to partake. When someone puts their trust in Christ, the Scripture says, we are "[u]complete[/u] in Him" (Col 2:10).

I fear if I were to delve into the topic of the Eucharist, I would be accused of going off topic, so I cannot go further.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Tony Atonement' date='27 November 2009 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1259317628' post='2010202']
Dear Nunsense....(I did see the play, BTW)...

I should think it would go without saying that if I thought I was missing something by not receiving the Eucharist, as Catholics define it, I would have remained Catholic. Anywho, I would have to disagree with your assumption that Christianity is "incomplete" without the sacraments that Catholicism bids us to partake. When someone puts their trust in Christ, the Scripture says, we are "[u]complete[/u] in Him" (Col 2:10).

I fear if I were to delve into the topic of the Eucharist, I would be accused of going off topic, so I cannot go further.
[/quote]

Wow - I had no idea you were Catholic before. I agree that it would go off topic here to discuss it further or I would have so much to say to you about this topic. But I am enjoying the debate of all of you anyway. Thanks for the reply. I never did see the play! I just liked the name.