I don’t know that we’ve ever met, I think you left OBC right around the time I started coming. In light of your commets, first of all, I know Erik well enough to know that he does not believe in “cheap” grace. He believes as the bible says that “faith without works is dead” and “That He who began a good work in you will see it through to completion. But I would draw your attention to one significant think, the demonstration of outward good deeds is not mean that someone is genuinely saved (born again). Simply Consider Romans 2:17-29:

“But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written. For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

Notice the list of things that this person can claim beyond circumcision: they are a Jew, they talk big about God, they teach others, they claim to be a witness to others, they know His will, they know the law; but the inner character of their life does not match their profession. They are like the people who thought that lust was different than adultery, coventing than stealing, and anger was different than murder. They failed to recognize that the inner principle was the same as an outward manifestation. They were part of the social community of Jews, but not a part of the spiritual community.

I see this type of thinking among Christians all they time. I go to church so I am saved. I talk about God alot so I must be saved. I have been baptized so I must hvae experienced the grace of God. I take communion so I must have expereinced saving grace. I read my bible so I must be a Christian. It is indeed a sad day when we have made Christianity into a mere preformance. Yet this is the published doctrine of the Catholic church, if you are batized you recieve grace, if you take communion you recieve grace, if you go to confession you recieve grace. Do you really think that God can be bought by such petty offerings.

In the end, the issue is not what you do. But has God had mercy upon you, has Christ died for you. And maybe more importantly have you realized that no matter what you do it never mean that you deserve God’s grace, after all even faith must be given to you.

The issue ultimately is the attitude of your heart.

Attitude 1: Stubborn and uprentant: “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom 2:5)

Attitude 2: Broken and Repentant: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” (Ps 51:17)

Justin

Justin Potts said, “My understanding is that the Catholic position is that once you have found faith you are required to perform good works to get to heaven. Is this accurate?”

You know, let’s look at scripture…

In Colossians 1:21-23, it says, in context of course and not just one verse… ” 21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach–

23 IF INDEED YOU CONTINUE IN THE FAITH FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AND STEADFAST, AND NOT MOVED AWAY FROM THE HOPE OF THE GOSPEL THAT YOU HAVE HEARD, (emphasis added) which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

It is also very clear in Phil 2:11-13, “11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is (A)Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12 So then, my beloved, (B)just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your (C)salvation with (D)fear and trembling; 13 for it is (E)God who is at work in you, both to will and to work (F)for His good pleasure.” It’s pretty clear here that we work out our salvation, obviously with God’s help as He is the one who would work in us. Paul mentions running the race, but more than running, to finish the race. It’s all about how we finish out, which would mean being in a state of God’s grace, friendship with Him, having a right, healthy relationship with Him before we die.
It’s also pretty clear that if we discontinue our continuance in the faith, then we do not go to heaven, IF we die in that state. It is clear in another passage, James 2:14-26 that faith without works is dead, and especially in verse 24 that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. I know what your thinking now and I’ll sum your words up with something Tony Reinke once said to a buddy of mine,

“On James-you wrongly assume that James is making an argument of how someone BECOMES saved rather than authenticating that someone IS saved. Paul in Romans and Galatians clearly shows how one BECOMES saved. Here in James, the story is much different. Look at the wording: “show me”. In other words, the contrast in James is not between faith and works but between dead faith and living faith. In v. 24 you also assume that Gk. dikaioun (justified/righteous) is being used as ‘justified’ which could very well mean ‘righteous’ (as Jesus used it) to mean “a man is shown to be righteous by works and not by faith alone.” ,which would do justice to the context of the passage as well.

What is the difference between faith and works and dead faith and living faith? Either one is dead or one is living. James is not talking about dead or living faith, but simply FAITH and WORKS and he is contrasting the two for a believer. Granted, God does all the work in the sinner, the Catholic Church agrees with this. Tony says, “very well mean…” is he sure or not sure here? You guys also keep saying things like, “I believe…” Well, are you 100% sure or is it something that YOU believe? Faith is faith and if you don’t have works, or LOVE, (1 Cor. 13), then you don’t have a relationship with Christ and if you stay in that state, you will not go to heaven. The NT is clear that you must have both to have a right relationship with Christ. Works comes after faith, but they are needed. You can’t say that one can be a Christian and never do good works and still go to heaven. God does it all, and never backs away from us, we choose, through our selfish desires to walk away from Him, and He lets us because He gives us that free choice.

Just a complete side-note off the subject meant to start more discussions…might I add that there wouldn’t be a protestant “sect” at all if Martin Luther had not done what he did? Everything points back to the Catholic Church as being the one, true church. Just an FYI as my official stand. Take it however you want. I am sure I’ll get fire from Erik, I have to say, I love the guy, he writes great articles. I just may not believe all of them to be accurate. We are still brothers in the Lord though, even though there may be bad blood. I will still always show reverence and love towards him. I just wish I could have known you better Erik!!!

You ask for the ‘rules’ of sola scriptura (SS)…we don’t have rules, per se…but there are definitions and deductions.

Here are some of what SS is not and what it is…(taken from James White’s The Roman Catholic Controversy…a great read, perhaps it would be helpful ;-D…)

What SS it is not a:
1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge
3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth
4. denial that God’s Word, at times, has been spoken
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the church

What SS is:
1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
2. The Church is in need of no additional revelation outside of Scripture
3. There is nothing infallible outside of the Scripture
4. Scripture reveals all things necessary for salvation.
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

If I understand your questions right it seems as though you are talking about a hermeneutic rather than my view of SS (which of course drives my hermeneutic just as my hermeneutic drives my bibliology).

When I read Galatians I can understand that Paul was extremely angry because certain religious people were relying upon and teaching others to rely upon a religious work to accompany their faith for justification. The root of the problem was the addition of works into the salvation equation, and for the Judiaziers this was circumcision.

I do not see how the association of Rome’s view of baptism with the Galatian heresy is inaccurate. Just because the text does not say baptism does not mean that what Rome is doing does not apply. For they are of the same seed; both are adding something one does (or receives if you prefer) to the cross. And by the way Paul’s opening words in the epistle declare open season on any teaching that is not lining up with the gospel of faith alone (Gal. 1.6-9).

You reference ultimate authority. The apostles served as the foundation of the church (Eph. 2.20). They served a particular purpose and as apostles they carried the authority of Jesus Christ (as they were apostles of Christ). Sometimes Catholics think that Protestants believe that everything that Paul ever said was inspired..this is not true! When you read 2 Tim. 3.16 we see clearly that it is the text that is inspired, or more literally breathed out by God. Not the man. With the text having their very source in the divine mouth as it were, they are all infallible, sufficient, and ultimately authoritative.

God has been graciously providing revelation throughout redemptive history. We believe in progressive revelation, that God has been revealing himself throughout the ages. So what is the date that you are referring to as the “before the Scriptures were assembled?”

So as far as early church fathers, I enjoy reading them as well. However, their words, while often times edifying (like James White’s ;-D) they are not breathed out by God, so therefore are not Scripture, so therefore not infallible. Everything that everyone says, whether Irenaeus, yourself, John Calvin, my pastor, whatever…are all subject to the authoritative self disclosure of God in the Scripture, for this is the final authority.

See…the more we talk the less we have in common 8^D

Look forward to hearing back from you.

I guess you will have to further enlighten me on the “rules” of sola scriptura. I always thought that sola scriptura meant the bible had to state a rule in order for the rule to apply. For instance:

“Circumcision was also something “received”: “…the one who receives circumcision, is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5.3). I do think baptism infused into the salvation equation is consistent with the root problem Paul was addressing.”

How is that position consistent with sola scriptura? The passage doesn’t say baptism is the same as circumcision when it comes to salvation or justification – that is just your interpretation of what you think the passage means.

Suppose a member of your congregation disagrees with that position. Do you tell that person that his or her interpretation is incorrect? If you do, then are you not using the same type of “teaching authority” in interpreting the Scriptures as the Church?

As to the “ultimate authority,” while I would not agree that Scripture is the final rule, I certainly feel capable of discussing most of the issues using Scripture. But I am curious about something. What was the ultimate authority before the Scriptures were assembled? Was it not the oral teachings of the Apostles as handed down from Christ? And would not the views of those who received such teachings directly be of use in knowing the faith?

I say this because I find the writings of the early Church fathers to be especially illuminating. Irenaeus, for example, who was taught by Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John. Justin Martyr is another. What is your view of their writings? If Irenaeus, for example, makes a statement about the Lord’s teaching on baptism, do you regard it as credible or not credible, and if not, why not?

Back in a bit…

RE: #1 in comment 20:
I appreciate your two conclusions: 1) who is right 2) is my view of Rome correct
It is there that I would like to pick up with you as time permits in the weeks ahead. I have to laugh at your comment concerning me doing this as “part of my job”…for the record blogging is a hobby not a profession…=^D

Regrettably it is here in the pursuit of who is right that a lot of dialogue with Roman Catholics breaks down. In order to proceed on the same terms you would have to say that Scripture is the ultimate authority and the final rule for determining such disputes or I would have to agree that the Church’s teaching is authoritative in interpreting the Scriptures. I am definitely not going to agree to the later, perhaps you would agree to the first?

RE: #2 in comment 20:
“Baptism is a different issue, as it is not a “good work” that you would go out and perform. It is something you would receive.”

Circumcision was also something “received”: “…the one who receives circumcision, is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5.3). I do think baptism infused into the salvation equation is consistent with the root problem Paul was addressing.

I have enjoyed this conversation and appreciated your tone throughout. Often times discussions such as this fail to maintain a gentleman’s tone. I appreciate what appear to be good motives on your part.

I would like to know what you would agree to in terms of authority for further discussion (cf. paragraph 2 above). This will prove quite helpful in our discussions.

Erik

1. “The initial discussion concerning whether or not what OBC was preaching is or is not similar to your church, or the Catholic church, I believe has been proven to be false.”

I suppose, but the real issue then is – who is right?
AND – Is your view of the Church’s position correct?

2. “You mention in your previous post that it is not fair to compare baptism to the Galatian heresy.”

That is not what I said. What I said was:

“Baptism is a different issue, as it is not a “good work” that you would go out and perform. It is something you would receive. Now I am happy to discuss that topic also, but let’s deal with one issue at a time.”

I am happy to show you passages that prove the necessity of baptism. All I was saying was that it is a topic separate and apart from the “faith plus works” topic, and that we should deal with one topic at a time. In any event, you are ‘interpreting’ when you read baptism into the list of items you thing are proscribed in Galatians. Doesn’t that violate your rule of “sola scriptura?”

As for the definitions, I have simply not had time to even continue my responses to Justin’s arguments. You’re lucky – you can do this as part of your job…lol. I don’t see why you would close the thread though. No reason your readers and I can’t continue this discussion. Besides…comments boost your search results!

I think this conversation is meandering away from a common framework. The initial discussion concerning whether or not what OBC was preaching is or is not similar to your church, or the Catholic church, I believe has been proven to be false. As we have said, in our view, the good works that accompany true saving faith are evidences of salvation. They are not meritorious in any way, nor do they prevent damnation, but rather just come along with genuine heaven wrought life when a sinner is born again and give evidence of this salvific grace (cf. Eph. 2.1-10; Titus 2.11-14; 3.5-7).

With justification being all of grace so to is preservation. God provides the grace to keep the one whom he has saved. As one person has said, “the saints in heaven are just as secure as the true saints below” for God keeps them, because God is able, as Jude, the half-brother of the Lord Jesus writes:

Jude 1:24-25 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

There are a number of other passages, which I will address shortly in a post concerning perseverance of the saints, however, in the meantime I want to just hit the few verses that you reference here:

1 Cor. 6.9-10: I find it interesting that this verse is quoted, as the passage is so clear as to the saving change that has occurred in the life of those who have received the demerited favor of God (grace). They were this way (fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous…) but they were washed — God using salvation terms here (justification, sanctification) in the name of the Lord Jesus. The whole point here is that salvation (here the justification & sanctification verbs are passive, again showing the power of God’s active grace as opposed to the human striving as the primary means of obtaining).

1 Cor. 9.26-27: You wrote: “Paul acknowledges that even he could fall if he is not careful” Does he? It seems pretty clear that the context is that of preaching the gospel-
v.16…if I preach the gospel
v.19…that I may win the more.
v.20…to the Jews I became a Jew
v.22…to the weak I became weak
v.23…I do all things for the sake of the gospel…

His whole point here is an undying burden for the gospel to go forth and he is saying that he disciplines himself, dealing with his flesh, so that he does not disqualify himself, that he does not render himself a hypocrite whose message is undermined by his shaky testimony. This disqualification does not refer to salvation but proclamation.

1 Cor. 10- Paul here is warning against the perilous evil of self-dependence, which is idolatry. This evil is what provoked the Lord to judge the Nation of Israel. And Israel becomes an example for those who would follow God not to crave evil things (v.6, 11). That believers would stand firm depending on God, not taking his grace for granted and constantly waging war on the heart. Again, I believe we are seeing here a solid exhortation to those who would profess to follow God yet deny him by their deeds, and who by this evidence that they are not true followers of him, but of self and Satan (cf. v.21).

Matt. 24:12-13-You wrote: "This is a recognition by Christ that people can accept Him but then fall away"…this passage does not say anything about people “accepting Christ” and then falling away. It talks about false prophets misleading people and sin increasing. However, it does say that those who endure are the ones who are saved…or to put it another way: the saved endure to the end.

Romans 11.17-20: Again David, believers believe and unbelievers do not. It is as simple as that. Why are Gentiles saved? Because of grace. How are they saved? By faith. Therefore, how in the world could a Gentile ever think that they are better than a Jew (or anyone else for that matter!). The gospel leaves the believer in a constant posture of dependence and praise, realizing that it is only by grace that we stand, not by self-dependence, but God dependence. Genuine saving faith believes, and genuine saving faith perseveres (because of divine grace) even to the end (cf. Romans 8.29-39) because it is God that started the work and God that will finish the work on the elect (cf. v.33).

Gal. 5.4: The one who has “fallen from grace” is the one who “receives circumcision” for this one is “under obligation to keep the whole Law” (v.3). If you turn away from the pure grace of Christ through the gospel and receive something additional to Christ to work as a salvific auxiliary before God (i.e. circumcision) you have fallen from grace. You mention in your previous post that it is not fair to compare baptism to the Galatian heresy. I disagree. The root issue with the Judiaziers was adding to the gospel, specifically the addition of Law keeping or “works” as Paul repeatedly calls it. Whatever is added, even that which is ostensibly “good” or “religious” is insulting to the Christ who died to pay the whole penalty. Even in 5.6 the point is that such works are invaluable. When Rome adds baptism to the salvation equation it is subtracting from the cross. The works of the Law may be the issue in Galatia but baptism is an appropriate stepchild of circumcision. As an aside most covenantal folks see baptism as the NT example of circumcision, or the sign of the covenant. So, it is not unfair to group baptism in with the Galatian anathema. And by the way Galatians 1 opens the door to reject a gospel from any and everybody who preaches one contrary to that which has been received. The scope of rejection is pretty broad.

Heb. 6.4-6: This is admittedly a tough passage. However, I don’t think that it teaches that you can loose your salvation. I would understand this passage as referring to those who have been experienced the grace of God through the body of Christ, and who have then turned away…there is not another option for salvation outside of Christ. And this is the point in all of the strong exhortations not to turn away from Christ (cf. 2.1-4; 6.4-8; 10.26-39; 12.25-29). The contrast between those who have fallen away and the genuine converts in 6.9 is clear: “but, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation…”.

My motives for asking you to define terms in comment 17 is to have some frame of reference. I intend to post something here in the near future on the salvation (justification, sanctification, glorification) and will interact with Rome’s teaching in this. We are moving into a new building here this week and I have a fairly heavy preaching schedule in the coming months, so bear with me. If you would like to talk further in the meantime, please email me otherwise, I am going to close this comment thread here. I look forward to further dialogue, while I am convinced that you and I see divergent views on the place of works in the life of a believer as well as the security of the believer in Christ.

37.We confess together that good works – a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love – follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the “meritorious” character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

Notice the last line, that this position is not to deny that justification is the unmerited gift of grace. I think Father William Most said it well when he said, “Final salvation is an : 1 Cor 6:9-10. We could not earn the inheritance, nor need we do it, but we could earn to lose it. Ibid.”

In other words, the Church believes, as the Bible states, that you can lose your salvation by your subsequent actions or inactions.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul warns his audience against overconfidence. He recounts how the Hebrews were saved and brought to the desert, but then were struck down due to their evil (10:1-5). Paul then warns the Corinthians against doing evil (10:6-11). Paul says in verse 12, “Therefore, whoever thinnks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.”

In Matthew 24, Jesus is warning of the calamities to come. He says: “12 and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who perservere to the end will be saved.” This is a recognition by Christ that people can accept Him but then fall away.

Paul also makes this clear in Romans 11:17-24. He compares the Gentiles to wild olive shoots grafted onto the olive tree (11:17). He states that the other branches, the Jewish people, were broken off because of unbelief, but that the Gentiles are there by faith (11:18-20). So he has clearly stated that they are in faith. BUT then he tells them that they may YET fall away if they are not careful.

“20 So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either. 22 See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

As I pointed out earlier, in Galatians 4, Paul stated that the Gentiles there had received Christ. Then in Galatians 5, he says “4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness.” So Paul thought it was certainly possible for a person to know Christ but then to fall away.

Hebrews 6:4-6 describes Christians who had embraced the faith but then fallen away. The Christian audience was in danger of apostacy due to the weariness of dealing with the demands of the faith. The purpose of the letter was to strengthen them in their faith. In Heb. 5:11-6:3, the author states that the audience has become sluggish and needs renewed instruction. He then states:

4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit 5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.

The author does not describe these people as false brothers, or as people who only pretended to join the faith. He describes them as having actually tasted Christ’s gift and then fallen away.

For brevity’s sake, here are just a few more references:

Hebrews 10:9-12: 9 But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better things related to salvation, even though we speak in this way. 10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones. 11 We earnestly desire each of you to demonstrate the same eagerness for the fulfillment of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not become sluggish, but imitators of those who, through faith and patience, are inheriting the promises.

Hebrews 10: 32-36
36 Remember the days past when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a great contest of suffering. 33 At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and affliction; at other times you associated yourselves with those so treated. 34 You even joined in the sufferings of those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, knowing that you had a better and lasting possession. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence; it will have great recompense. 36 You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised.

Paul acknowledges that even he could fall if he is not careful. 1 Cor. 9:26-27. 26 Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. 27 No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

Back with more later.