Evidence for God from Science

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:

Well of course! How else could a person do anything "good" apart from the HS ( and more so, why would they apart from the HS ) ?

So we all kinda agree. Bav, maybe you, Byblos, and I will see each other at Church, er, I mean Mass on Sunday, er, I mean Saturday.

Maybe, but the Sabbath, Saturday, is the only day made for man and blessed by God to do so.
.
.

So, since the Catholic church is the only true church going back to Christ, and the Sabbath is the day of worship, Byblos, Bav and I will see you at Catholic mass on Saturday.

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:

To bear fruit is to work...but the work is done BECAUSE...not IN ORDER TO...

Disagree here. How hard does a tree 'work', to produce fruit? I've found that the more I rest on God, and His assurance, and His work, the more I desire to do His will(love God, and my neighbor). And, the more I try to do good, or work to bear fruit, the more I hate doing it, and it becomes a chore.

EXACTLY the point. A tree does nothing that isn't done by its nature of being a tree. In order to produce fruit, in our sinful nature as we are not changed yet, we continually struggle with the Spiritual nature...that naturally follows God's Law and therefore we do not naturally love God OR even our neighbor. If you think you're able to do that perfectly...I have some beach-front property in Arizona to sell you.

You're disagreeing with something you fail to see you agree with.

RickD wrote:the more I desire to do His will(love God, and my neighbor)

You are still in the flesh and cannot do that which you "desire" to want to do (see the wretched man spoken of by Paul ) Our attempts are for nothing. Nothing? They must show something if faith without works is dead. ( see James 2:18-26 )

Does the work save us? No! Faith that produces good works does. ( see also Matthew 25:14-30 )

So, I guess I'm saying that when one bears fruit, real fruit, it's because of the 'work' of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit in a believer. Not by the believer himself. Are you saying the same thing, in a different way, that I'm not seeing?

Well of course! How else could a person do anything "good" apart from the HS ( and more so, why would they apart from the HS ) ? However I would caution anyone on believing this and therefore believing the Council of Trent teaching...that we are saved by Grace through Faith PLUS the works of the HS wrought in the heart of the believer. We are saved solely by Grace through Faith and not by works AT ALL. Works are simply the natural fruit of true Faith. There's a fine line. I dare not drop God's concil to do my own thing if the righteous things have been laid out for me already.

Bav, I don't think any of us are arguing against the work of God, is what saves. We're trying to find out where we disagree on what part a "work" as in work of a believer, or other human, has in justification, or sanctification.

Well, so far this looks like a Catholic bashing thread. While, there are some things that I disagree with with catholics, but some things you call "works" I don't disagree with. These are certainly not exclusive to Catholic faith.

The bible has propositions straight from Jesus in which a true believer would follow.

(NASB)Matthew 11:28-30
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. [29] "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. [30] "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

We find this is also concurred in John

(NASB)1 John 5:1-8
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. [2] By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. [3] For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. [4] For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. [5] Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? [6] This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. [7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

So again, this isn't exclusive to a Catholic

(NASB)John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." [4] Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother''s womb and be born, can he?" [5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And again, more backup

(NASB)Titus 3:3-7
For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. [4] But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, [5] He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, [6] whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Again, here is Jesus at the last supper.

(NASB)Luke 22:19-20
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." [20] And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

So, again, this is 2 things and they are both not exclusive to Catholics. Just want to make sure we get the facts straight here. Baptizisms (the ones performed on consenting people) and the Lord's supper are not exclusive to Catholics and they do not classify as works according to the words directly from Christ.

Domokunrox wrote:

So, again, this is 2 things and they are both not exclusive to Catholics. Just want to make sure we get the facts straight here. Baptizisms (the ones performed on consenting people) and the Lord's supper are not exclusive to Catholics and they do not classify as works according to the words directly from Christ.

Just so we're clear, this is not a Catholic bashing thread. And I agree, in proper context, water baptism, and the Lord's Supper, are not works that one does for salvation, or sanctification. Byblos has said that, and I have said that as well. They key is proper context. Just so we're clear, this isn't going to turn into another sales pitch for baptismal regeneration, either. So, I'm nipping that in the bud.

It is NOT the works but the intent behind them.
One can't judge one works "greater" than another.
The person that gives more than they other may SEEM to be doing more, but if the other gives all they have, even if it is less, doesn't that MEAN more? and what of intent?
If a person gives to get something (reward, recompense, acknowledgement, and "offs-set" against sins, etc) is that work not "tainted" compared to one that gives with nothing but love in their heart and asks and accepts nothing in return?
It seems to me that Paul's issues weren't with works per say, he certainly praised those that gave to help others ( as does James praise those that help orphans, the only "work" he even mentions to be a worthy one), but his issues were with those that not only boasted in what they did, they also believe themselves more "holy" or "worthy" of salvation because of those acts ( circumcision, giving a % to the poor, keeping the sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc).
Paul was making it clear that Christ will decided, the Christ gives his grace to all, that Christ and only Christ can judge a man's heart.

RickD wrote:Byblos wrote:

If these are sacraments instituted by Christ to keep close to him and if I fail to stay close to him and that results in me denying Christ, then I would hope you can see how this does become a matter of salvation.

So, according to Catholicism, one believes he must continue to participate in these sacraments, on a daily, or weekly basis, in order to feel a measure of security? If, as a Catholic, I believe if I don't participate in the sacraments, I may deny Christ, and "lose my salvation", for lack of a better term? Can't you see how this leads me to think that as a Catholic, I must participate in sacraments, in order to have a hope of not losing my salvation? Furthermore, can't you see how I feel that's a terrible burden for one to carry. Feeling that if I skip church, then I miss some sacraments here or there, then I may fall away from Christ, and deny Him? Do you really live with that kind of stress?

As with any conversation of this nature we always drift to the extremes. Why does it always have to be that way? I don't go to church, confess my sins, receive communion, in order to have security that I will not lose my salvation; that's just silly. I am a believer and, as a believer I do what I believe Christ commanded me to do. Losing my salvation is the furthest thing from my mind. I am secure in the knowledge that I believe in Christ and am a born again child of God and as such, the Holy Spirit in me guides me to good works already prepared for me. How does this contribute to me not losing my salvation? Because the HS in me keeps me grounded in Christ and what he commanded me to do. No stress, no nothing, it is that simple.

RickD wrote:*****Added after post*****
Byblos wrote:

Rick in Catholic theology there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a Christian can do apart from the grace of God. God does the saving, God does the forgiving, God does the baptizing, God does the miracle of the Eucharist, etc, etc. So to say something like 'in our attempt to be Christ-like' it is understood that that is done by God's grace alone.

Byblos, the difference that I see, is that in Catholicism(or any Christian denomination), God does the saving, and forgiving by His power alone. In Catholicism(or any Christian denomination), God does the baptizing(water), Eucharist(unique to Catholicism), etc., by the hands of men. This is where it becomes a work, performed by men, as something needed for salvation.

The same way God does the saving and we cooperate with it is the same way God does the baptizing or the forgiving and we cooperate with it. God does not forgive sins unless sins are confessed to be forgiven. It always requires a measure of cooperation on our part. Whether that cooperation comes in the form of faith or in the form of confession or receiving communion is irrelevant. Spending extra calories on something does not make it a "work" to boast about or to gain or even maintain salvation. They are what God expects of us.

I think the differences are being a bit exaggerated here. Consider the following catechism:

• Q. 85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
  A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.
  
  Q. 88. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
  A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are, his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

Byblos, you tell me what you think of these statements. I bet you would be inclined to agree with them, at least in spirit if not letter. Most protestants I show this to immediately assume it's a Catholic catechism. Yet it's not. It comes from the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

I would suggest that the OP has phrased the question incorrectly. The proper question is not what is a work, but rather what is faith. Because otherwise, you can say, as many do across the theological spectrum (from Catholics to Calvinists to Arminians) that what I might call a work is actually an act of faith (e.g., sacraments are not works precisely because they are means of grace which we receive through faith).

As with any conversation of this nature we always drift to the extremes. Why does it always have to be that way? I don't go to church, confess my sins, receive communion, in order to have security that I will not lose my salvation; that's just silly. I am a believer and, as a believer I do what I believe Christ commanded me to do

Byblos, you wrote this:

If these are sacraments instituted by Christ to keep close to him and if I fail to stay close to him and that results in me denying Christ, then I would hope you can see how this does become a matter of salvation.

How else am I supposed to read this, other than the way it is clearly written? Let's assume for the sake of discussion, God instituted the sacraments to keep close to Him, as you said. So, the next logical step would be for us to do what we had to, to keep the sacraments, so we won't fail to keep close to God, and deny Christ. How else should that be interpreted? You feel one's salvation isn't complete yet. So, in order to do our best to make sure we don't deny Christ, we must do our best to keep the sacraments.

Byblos, the difference that I see, is that in Catholicism(or any Christian denomination), God does the saving, and forgiving by His power alone. In Catholicism(or any Christian denomination), God does the baptizing(water), Eucharist(unique to Catholicism), etc., by the hands of men. This is where it becomes a work, performed by men, as something needed for salvation.



The same way God does the saving and we cooperate with it is the same way God does the baptizing or the forgiving and we cooperate with it. God does not forgive sins unless sins are confessed to be forgiven. It always requires a measure of cooperation on our part. Whether that cooperation comes in the form of faith or in the form of confession or receiving communion is irrelevant. Spending extra calories on something does not make it a "work" to boast about or to gain or even maintain salvation. They are what God expects of us.

Byblos, you're not seeing the difference. Our believing on Christ, takes a belief on our part. Same with forgiveness. Between the believer and God. Water baptism, the Lord's Supper(Eucharist) both take "work" done by someone other than the believer, and God, done by the hands of men. So, these "rituals", done by the hands of men, are now necessary, in some part for salvation, or sanctification, or security in Christ. You surely know the Catholic Church's official stance on sacraments, correct?

I don't mean to keep belaboring this point, but I can't help but see the difference.

I would suggest that the OP has phrased the question incorrectly. The proper question is not what is a work, but rather what is faith. Because otherwise, you can say, as many do across the theological spectrum (from Catholics to Calvinists to Arminians) that what I might call a work is actually an act of faith (e.g., sacraments are not works precisely because they are means of grace which we receive through faith).

Jac, I see what you're saying. The issues, and disagreements that we've been talking about, have been about what have been seen as "works". Specifically what is necessary for salvation. I agree that sacraments are actually works of faith. But, I don't believe the sacraments are required for salvation.

From:http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php

The Church Thus Teaches: There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey. They are validly administered by the carrying out of the sign with the proper intention. Not all are equally qualified to administer all the sacraments. The validity of the sacrament is independent of the worthiness of the minister. Three sacraments imprint an indelible character.

Sacramentals are instituted by the Church and are effective by virtue of the Church's intercession. Institution and alteration of them is reserved to the Holy See.

RickD wrote:Byblos, you're not seeing the difference. Our believing on Christ, takes a belief on our part. Same with forgiveness. Between the believer and God. Water baptism, the Lord's Supper(Eucharist) both take "work" done by someone other than the believer, and God, done by the hands of men. So, these "rituals", done by the hands of men, are now necessary, in some part for salvation, or sanctification, or security in Christ. You surely know the Catholic Church's official stance on sacraments, correct?

I don't mean to keep belaboring this point, but I can't help but see the difference.

That's what I keep disagreeing with, the fact that we perform these "rituals" as you put it doesn't mean they are "works" of men. They were commanded by God and their efficacy comes only from God. I really don't know how many times I can say this.

What do you mean by "required for salvation", Rick? If you mean that if you don't receive them you have not met the necessary conditions for salvation and therefore will go to Hell (or not go to Heaven, if you want to make a distinction), then there is a sense Catholics would agree with you. Everyone knows, for instance, that Catholics see water baptism as essential to salvation, but they also make a big deal of the baptism of desire. There are real cases in which a person may be saved without receiving water baptism (and the same is true with all the other sacraments). The reason is that they are "required for salvation" only in the normal sense, all things being equal, they are the means by which we receive the one thing that is required for salvation: the grace of God. Further, even they themselves are not the means, but the faith in which they are received is the means. Thus, Catholics insist that there is a sense that they are saved through faith alone, insofar as the sacraments are really works of faith by which they receive the grace of God.

Again, all of this is exactly what Reformed theology has traditionally taught. I'll have a lot of other quotes for you in that regard in the next day or two. Again, you are exaggerating the differences in Catholicism and Protestantism (historically) when you talk about works and sacraments. Everyone has always agreed (wrongly, I think) that works of the moral law are required for salvation, but that they are not human works--they are works wrought by the Holy Spirit, and that we receive the grace necessary to be saved via the sacraments and ordinances, and the reception of those sacraments and ordinances (e.g, prayer, Bible study, the Lord's Supper, baptism, etc.) in faith is what enables a person to live so; or better, it is the means by which God applies His saving grace.

That idea is even in the staunchest Southern Baptist Church. Why do you think they emphasize Bible study so much? That's the means by which we receive the grace to live out our repentance towards God, which validates their "profession of faith." But just studying the Bible won't do it, they say. It's studying the Bible in faith, that is, believing that it is the Word of God and applicable to your life as the rule of faith and living. Put differently, we put ourselves under the authority of Scripture, which is an act of faith.

How, for instance, do you think a Southern Baptist would feel and respond if you told them that putting themselves under the authority of Scripture was a work? They'd obviously react rather negatively. And suppose you asked them what was necessary for sanctification? They would surely say something along the lines of a commitment to discipleship, which is to say (again), a deep and lasting commitment to living under the authority of the Word. And again, if you accused them therefore of being committed to a works based salvation (insofar as sanctification is part of the salvation process)?

The Catholics that I have talked to have a similar reaction when Protestants accuse them of a works based salvation. The great irony is that the vast majority of Protestants I have talked to about the issue (especially Reformed Protestants) really believe the same types of things as Catholics with regard to works, justification, and sanctification. The terminology is different, so they don't see the connection. But it's right there in their own definitions. You mentioned fiducia earlier in the thread. I'm telling you, and I'll prove it in a few days, fiducia in Reformed Theology is virtually identical to the Roman view. Faith is not merely assent (assensus, but actually faithfulness--the ongoing living out of the moral life.

I would suggest again, then, that the argument is not the nature of works, and it does precious little good to accuse someone of practicing a "salvation by works." The argument is the nature of faith, and the truly damning assertion is that the person who says they have faith in Christ has no such thing because they have misdefined faith.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos, you're not seeing the difference. Our believing on Christ, takes a belief on our part. Same with forgiveness. Between the believer and God. Water baptism, the Lord's Supper(Eucharist) both take "work" done by someone other than the believer, and God, done by the hands of men. So, these "rituals", done by the hands of men, are now necessary, in some part for salvation, or sanctification, or security in Christ. You surely know the Catholic Church's official stance on sacraments, correct?

I don't mean to keep belaboring this point, but I can't help but see the difference.

That's what I keep disagreeing with, the fact that we perform these "rituals" as you put it doesn't mean they are "works" of men. They were commanded by God and their efficacy comes only from God. I really don't know how many times I can say this.

Ok, then I believe my OP question has been answered. At least partially. I believe that any sacrament needed for salvation, done by the hands of men, is a "work". And is therefore something added to believing on Christ, for salvation. And you're saying that the sacraments, even those performed by men(those in the Catholic Church, ordained by God to perform the sacraments), are commandments of God, and the sacraments efficacy comes from God. Is that an accurate representation of what you're saying?

Byblos, I'm trying to be as accurate with this as possible. This is how I learn about views that may or may not differ from mine. While it seems I'm beating a dead horse, it's how I learn. And, as always, I appreciate the time and effort you take dealing with my sometimes redundant questions.

The issue seems to be one of "works of God" ( to be done by Man) VS "works of Man"
But I think that brings up the problem of the laws of the OT, since they were given By God they would also be "works of God"

What do you mean by "required for salvation", Rick?

I mean "Do you believe salvation comes by God's grace, through faith in Christ, alone, or are you not saved unless you are baptized in water, perform the Eucharist, etc."

If you mean that if you don't receive them you have not met the necessary conditions for salvation and therefore will go to Hell (or not go to Heaven, if you want to make a distinction), then there is a sense Catholics would agree with you.

That's basically what I'm asking. And, not just for Catholics, but Byblos is graciously taking the time to deal with my questions.

The reason is that they are "required for salvation" only in the normal sense, all things being equal, they are the means by which we receive the one thing that is required for salvation: the grace of God.

If that is what you and Byblos are saying, then I disagree. I believe we receive the grace of God, required for salvation, by believing on Christ, not by the sacraments.

Thus, Catholics insist that there is a sense that they are saved through faith alone, insofar as the sacraments are really works of faith by which they receive the grace of God.

I understand that. Then I guess you're right about "faith" being the word in question here.

Everyone has always agreed (wrongly, I think) that works of the moral law are required for salvation, but that they are not human works--they are works wrought by the Holy Spirit, and that we receive the grace necessary to be saved via the sacraments and ordinances, and the reception of those sacraments and ordinances (e.g, prayer, Bible study, the Lord's Supper, baptism, etc.) in faith is what enables a person to live so; or better, it is the means by which God applies His saving grace.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't agree with that.

That idea is even in the staunchest Southern Baptist Church. Why do you think they emphasize Bible study so much? That's the means by which we receive the grace to live out our repentance towards God, which validates their "profession of faith." But just studying the Bible won't do it, they say. It's studying the Bible in faith, that is, believing that it is the Word of God and applicable to your life as the rule of faith and living. Put differently, we put ourselves under the authority of Scripture, which is an act of faith.

How, for instance, do you think a Southern Baptist would feel and respond if you told them that putting themselves under the authority of Scripture was a work? They'd obviously react rather negatively. And suppose you asked them what was necessary for sanctification? They would surely say something along the lines of a commitment to discipleship, which is to say (again), a deep and lasting commitment to living under the authority of the Word. And again, if you accused them therefore of being committed to a works based salvation (insofar as sanctification is part of the salvation process)?

I would have no problem calling that a works based salvation, or at least, a works based santification.

The Catholics that I have talked to have a similar reaction when Protestants accuse them of a works based salvation. The great irony is that the vast majority of Protestants I have talked to about the issue (especially Reformed Protestants) really believe the same types of things as Catholics with regard to works, justification, and sanctification. The terminology is different, so they don't see the connection. But it's right there in their own definitions. You mentioned fiducia earlier in the thread. I'm telling you, and I'll prove it in a few days, fiducia in Reformed Theology is virtually identical to the Roman view. Faith is not merely assent (assensus, but actually faithfulness--the ongoing living out of the moral life.

My only point with distinguishing between different kinds of faith, was to say that only an intellectual faith(like the demons have) won't save. I'd like to see what you have to say, though.

I would suggest again, then, that the argument is not the nature of works, and it does precious little good to accuse someone of practicing a "salvation by works." The argument is the nature of faith, and the truly damning assertion is that the person who says they have faith in Christ has no such thing because they have misdefined faith.

Ok, then what's the next step to see if we can come to an agreement on what faith is? Although, I'm getting the impression from you that there won't be any consensus.

And, I'm not singling out Catholicism. I'm questioning any denomination, that I'm seeing as 'works-based'. No Catholic bashing here. Just trying to question as honestly as I can.

Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns, Jac. I do appreciate it.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos, you're not seeing the difference. Our believing on Christ, takes a belief on our part. Same with forgiveness. Between the believer and God. Water baptism, the Lord's Supper(Eucharist) both take "work" done by someone other than the believer, and God, done by the hands of men. So, these "rituals", done by the hands of men, are now necessary, in some part for salvation, or sanctification, or security in Christ. You surely know the Catholic Church's official stance on sacraments, correct?

I don't mean to keep belaboring this point, but I can't help but see the difference.

That's what I keep disagreeing with, the fact that we perform these "rituals" as you put it doesn't mean they are "works" of men. They were commanded by God and their efficacy comes only from God. I really don't know how many times I can say this.

Ok, then I believe my OP question has been answered. At least partially. I believe that any sacrament needed for salvation, done by the hands of men, is a "work". And is therefore something added to believing on Christ, for salvation. And you're saying that the sacraments, even those performed by men(those in the Catholic Church, ordained by God to perform the sacraments), are commandments of God, and the sacraments efficacy comes from God. Is that an accurate representation of what you're saying?

Byblos, I'm trying to be as accurate with this as possible. This is how I learn about views that may or may not differ from mine. While it seems I'm beating a dead horse, it's how I learn. And, as always, I appreciate the time and effort you take dealing with my sometimes redundant questions.

That's pretty close yes. I think Jac's post adds more clarification.