Bible Study Does James 2 Teach Works for Salvation?

[GodsGrace]

A person becomes righteous through their faith before and apart from the performance of work.

Faith will surely produce work, if it's genuine. But the work that follows faith in no way shape or form contributes to a person receiving the righteousness of God. That happens when a person has faith before they do any work just like it did for our example of righteousness through faith, Abraham.

Understood.

Catholics say you have to have faith and perform their rituals in order to become righteous. That's why there is the Catholic church and a Protestant church. This is the fundamental disagreement between us. It is an important and critical difference that demands that we each stay on our own side of the great chasm between us.

If Catholics have to perform rituals in order to become saved...
How do they know at what point they have gained salvation?

How many rituals must be performed?
1, 3, 10?

I can summarize it like this:

Catholics: I am not justified/saved until I have faith in God and do the rituals/works commanded by the Catholic church, and continue to do them.

We also believe in CONTINUE TO DO THEM.
I don't see the difference.

Protestants: I am not justified/saved until I have faith in God.

Both believe this.

If I don't do works that doesn't mean I didn't do the works necessary to be justified/saved. It means I do not have the faith that justifies/saves.

But here you're talking about AFTER salvation...
Works don't save...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You confuse the "works of the Law" with simple obedience.

No. Obedience does not make you righteous. Only the forgiveness of your sin received through faith makes you righteous. There is no work that makes you righteous. If you think there is then you are serving a works gospel - another gospel. A gospel that can not save.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If Catholics have to perform rituals in order to become saved...
How do they know at what point they have gained salvation?

How many rituals must be performed?
1, 3, 10?

That is the question that has brought me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a saved Catholic. They're still doing the things they have been told by the Catholic church to do in order to be justified/saved. Things they will not finish doing while still alive.

Meanwhile, we Protestants have passed from death to life and have eternal life now, and have had from the moment we believed. John 5:24

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We also believe in CONTINUE TO DO THEM.
I don't see the difference.

The difference is Protestants don't do them to be justified (imputed the righteousness of God). That happened one time for all time the moment we believed. We continue to do them BECAUSE we are justified in Christ, not in order to be justified as the Catholics do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Both believe this.

But for the Catholic that means at the end of this life after they have done all the rituals and works over and over again in faith.

For the Protestant it means the moment they believe.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is the question that has brought me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a saved Catholic. They're still doing the things they have been told by the Catholic church to do in order to be justified/saved. Things they will not finish doing while still alive.

Meanwhile, we Protestants have passed from death to life and have eternal life now, and have had from the moment we believed. John 5:24

Like what things,for instance?

 

[GodsGrace]

The difference is Protestants don't do them to be justified (imputed the righteousness of God). That happened one time for all time the moment we believed. We continue to do them BECAUSE we are justified in Christ, not in order to be justified as the Catholics do.

It's the same.
You only get justified one time.

 

[GodsGrace]

But for the Catholic that means at the end of this life after they have done all the rituals and works over and over again in faith.

For the Protestant it means the moment they believe.

That sounds like WE WILL BE SAVED.
For the Catholic it's the same.

If Dr. Hahn and Jimmy Akin didn't convince you, no one can. Top apologists and Hahn is a theologian.

I'm sorry some may misrepresent the Catholic faith. Maybe they just like to argue.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Like what things,for instance?

The Sacraments.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's the same.
You only get justified one time.

But if the Catholic person is justified by faith and works as they claim how can they be justified one time?

I've had Catholics say justification is ongoing and has to be done over and over again.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If Dr. Hahn and Jimmy Akin didn't convince you, no one can. Top apologists and Hahn is a theologian.

Convince me of what exactly? That Catholics and Protestants do not differ in how to be justified/saved?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That sounds like WE WILL BE SAVED.
For the Catholic it's the same.

But I said in that quote that we Protestants are saved now (John 5:24). We are not waiting to become saved people. Catholics are, though, it appears.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm sorry some may misrepresent the Catholic faith.

Honestly, I don't think they are. They remind us why Protestants had to break away. Luther's revelation of faith in Romans 1:18 is not shared by Catholics.

Read this, wondering , from https://lutheranreformation.org/theology/luthers-breakthrough-romans/ :


Luther’s discovery was that he now no longer needed to look to his own works, behavior, or obedience to determine his standing before God. He discovered that the believer had the full righteousness of Christ, who fulfilled the Law, already now—not maybe or later—by faith. For peace of conscience, rather than looking to his own active goodness and holiness spurred on by “infused grace,” he could rest confident in the declaration of God that the sinner is righteous because He is covered in the righteousness of Christ.

All along the Scriptures clearly stated that man is justified and saved through faith in Christ and not by works. However the prevailing understanding of the day was that God’s grace merely gave man the ability to become righteous before God and faith was the active work of the believer who improved and progressed in his standing before God by his obedience and behavior. Luther’s breakthrough was that God justifies the sinner not by giving him the ability to become righteous but by crediting the holiness, obedience, and goodness of Christ to him as righteousness. “Justification is not a change in man but the gracious declaration of God by which He pronounces righteous the sinner who in himself is not righteous.”[7]


So, wondering, where do you fall? On the side of Luther, or the Catholic church's concept of 'infused grace' that he was challenging? I found this very, very useful in understanding the mind of the Catholic vs. the mind of the Protestant. I hope you do too.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Sacraments.

The sacraments offer grace.
You could get all the 7 sacraments 7 times, but if you have no faith, there will be no salvation.
An atheist could get sacraments, what good would it do?
Paul says in Corinthians that we eat of the bread and wine to our own detriment if we eat unworthily.

 

[GodsGrace]

But if the Catholic person is justified by faith and works as they claim how can they be justified one time?

I've had Catholics say justification is ongoing and has to be done over and over again.

I said in a post prior that Catholics call ongoing justification what we call sanctification.
It's the same, only the wording is different.
I see how this could cause confusion...which is why I explained the terminology.

 

[GodsGrace]

But I said in that quote that we Protestants are saved now (John 5:24). We are not waiting to become saved people. Catholics are, though, it appears.

We were saved: Ephesians 2:8
We are being saved: 1 Corinthians 1:18
We will be saved: 1 Peter 1:5

We won't be RECEIVIING our salvation till the end.
1 Peter 1:9
8and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

 

[GodsGrace]

Honestly, I don't think they are. They remind us why Protestants had to break away. Luther's revelation of faith in Romans 1:18 is not shared by Catholics.

Read this, wondering , from https://lutheranreformation.org/theology/luthers-breakthrough-romans/ :


Luther’s discovery was that he now no longer needed to look to his own works, behavior, or obedience to determine his standing before God. He discovered that the believer had the full righteousness of Christ, who fulfilled the Law, already now—not maybe or later—by faith. For peace of conscience, rather than looking to his own active goodness and holiness spurred on by “infused grace,” he could rest confident in the declaration of God that the sinner is righteous because He is covered in the righteousness of Christ.

All along the Scriptures clearly stated that man is justified and saved through faith in Christ and not by works. However the prevailing understanding of the day was that God’s grace merely gave man the ability to become righteous before God and faith was the active work of the believer who improved and progressed in his standing before God by his obedience and behavior. Luther’s breakthrough was that God justifies the sinner not by giving him the ability to become righteous but by crediting the holiness, obedience, and goodness of Christ to him as righteousness. “Justification is not a change in man but the gracious declaration of God by which He pronounces righteous the sinner who in himself is not righteous.”[7]


So, wondering, where do you fall? On the side of Luther, or the Catholic church's concept of 'infused grace' that he was challenging? I found this very, very useful in understanding the mind of the Catholic vs. the mind of the Protestant. I hope you do too.

I stated what you have in blue about 10 posts ago regarding the reformation.

You also don't state the source.
I also don't read anywhere above anything that says Catholics are saved by works, but sanctified by works.

Don't you believe in infused grace?

I fall on the side of believing what a denomination teaches.
Not what some article says about the CC or what some misguided poster says about it.

I'm not spending my time arguing with a Catholic about something that is not even true about them.
There are teachings I don't agree with, but , you know what, they're allowed to teach what they want to teach.

I'm much more concerned with Calvinism - it does seem to be a different gospel to me...a different God.
Do you ever wonder why I know about the CC? You never aksed.

I think this should be the end of this conversation.
I posted enough links that should have helped you to know the true teachings.
Maybe you don't want to know...you could just keep arguing with catholics -

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you ever wonder why I know about the CC? You never aksed.

I know that you are Catholic.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I stated what you have in blue about 10 posts ago regarding the reformation.

You also don't state the source.

I posted the active link.

I also don't read anywhere above anything that says Catholics are saved by works, but sanctified by works.

Infused grace is a works gospel.

I'm beginning to see, now, how to address the subtle deception of Catholic teaching about righteousness.

Catholics use the grace of God to gradually become righteous.

Protestants receive the grace of God's righteousness and do not strive to work their own.

Read Luther's testimony in the link. It's an easy read and it will help you understand the profound difference between what's going on in the mind of the Catholic vs. what's going on in the mind of the Protestant.

Protestants are already righteous. Catholics are working to become righteous. You may find out you're not very Catholic at all!

 

[GodsGrace]

Just the false doctrines.

Just the posers.

Have you no faith in the difference between the old man and the man reborn of God's seed?

Sure.
But I see change from the beginning.
I feel like there's still room for change - not as much as the beginning.
And I don't mean that I drank or was promiscuous or anything like that... (yeah, I'm perfect! LOL)
the changes were small but significant.

It would be a sin if I still committed sin.
But I walk in the light/God, and there is no sin in God.

Agreed. There is no sin in God.
But there is possible sin in us.
I don't know any person that is perfect in every way.
To say that you don't sin...you'd have to be perfect.
And I do believe that only Jesus was a perfect man.

It is possible for every person to turn from sin and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their past sins.

What about the future sins?
Why did John make a way for them to be forgiven?
Why did Jesus tell the Apostles they could forgive sins?

Sinlessness is the testimony of the efficacy of the suffering and death of our Savior.
Sin is the antithesis of love.

I do agree with your second sentence.
Like I said....I haven't had the experience of meeting a sinless person.

The "achievement" is the Lord's.
He freed me from service to sin, and can save you as well.

The achievement is the Lord's...but Paul is telling CHRISTIAN brothers what not to do.
If they never sinned anymore....Paul wouldn't find it necessary to preach what NOT to do.
As to freeing us from service to sin...
Agreed. Amen to that.
We serve the one to whom we present ourselves.

No they weren't.
The apostles of the Lord could recognize posers immediately.
Ananias and Sapphira come to mind.

That part is correct.
Old man...destroyed, (Rom 6:6, Gal 5:24), new man...raised with Christ to walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

Amen to that.
But why quote it if you don't believe it?

I did explain how I understood Galatians.
We crucified the sin nature to a cross.
But it's not dead...it's under submission to our new heart.
John Wesley taught we could live a totally sanctified life.
No one believes this anymore.

Why not call it what it was...Judaism.
A return to a necessity to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Laws.

Fine by me.
Some call it legalism.
Some call it works.
Some call it The Law.
Whatever works.

Indeed, there was no further need for circumcision, dietary rules, feast keeping, sabbath keeping, etc.

Then you don't believe the scripture you cite.

explained above...

Romans 8.8
Those that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Those that are in the flesh are not saved.
1 John 3:8
8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God
If we PRACTICE sin we are of satan, the ruler of this world.
Jesus destroyed his works...
We are born of God and cannot PRACTICE sin because we are children of God.

Practicing sin and sinning are different.
There is allowance made for sinning both by Jesus and John and Paul.

The "any man" of 1 John 2:1 is the man not yet in Christ.
They are still walking in darkness/sin.
Go down a few more verses..."And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3-4)

Who is the ANY MAN in 1 John 2:1 ?

1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
Paul is addressing the little children - saved again believers.
He states that WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE....We is the children.
Paul is telling them not to violate God's laws....this is sin.

Amplified
My little children (believers, dear ones), I am writing you these things so that you will not sin and violate God’s law. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate [who will intercede for us] with the Father: Jesus Christ the righteous [the upright, the just One, who conforms to the Father’s will in every way—purpose, thought, and action].