Who or What is Antichrist?

[mjrhealth]

He did!
"Take, eat; this is my body."

Does any one recall reading in the bible about Jesus missing any boy parts or having bite marks??

Still missing the revelation bit, you wont find it in religion.,

 

[bbyrd009]

i guess you have to experience the counterfeit first, and choice seems to be a constant theme in Scripture. Christ took some time to develop the communion theme, beginning with deliberate offense--to Jews, anyway--which we can read caused many to turn away, and then relating His Body to wheat, and His Blood to wine, only later, to the Apostles. After condemning those who claim that "We ate and drank in Your presence."

The ambiguity alone is enough to put many off. I've come to think that these are what is necessary in order to embody the Spirit, which doesn't make much sense until you see that sometimes if they are not with you they are against you, and sometimes if they are not against you they are with you. The message seems to be that when you make a Law, you are missing the boat, or at least that's how i take it.

 

[bbyrd009]

there also seems to be a tacit push to separate believers from the Body of Christ, which a concept of immersing oneself in Christ, or accepting Christ into your innermost parts, reinforces, but a communion ceremony might even work against--especially when it is made common, or done more often than "as oft as ye meet," which was 3 times a year, if i'm not mistaken.

The Last Supper story could have been presented any number of ways, but it is presented to us in such a way that the representative nature of "Christ's Body" is hard to miss, imo, since Jesus was there/then, in His Body, and yet declined to make good on the concept that offended so many previously, and turned so many away from following Him. I've seen theological arguments that conclude that Jesus was speaking to a Hellenist crowd, and may not have fully understood the definition of soma...but of course the same theological professors want to insist in another breath that Jesus was God, too.

So imo it becomes imperative for a seeker to at some point define for themselves the concept of "Body of Christ," which imo is not physically embodied at all--just as you can point to your brain, but not your mind--and transubstantiation occludes.

Where is the Body of Christ now?

 

[bbyrd009]

Does any one recall reading in the bible about Jesus missing any boy parts or having bite marks??

Still missing the revelation bit, you wont find it in religion.,

as to this mjr, while i understand your position, i suggest that religion serves a purpose, which you might even relate to the offense that Christ offered the crowds. But i would note that there is another trap in there, that being the one of making you proud of your new understanding, and thus unable to serve those with dirty feet, so to speak. I don't know about you, but i came to Christ through religion. Imo we expect our seeds to sprout immediately, and bear fruit in that current conversation, and be acknowledged in an immediate change of heart on the other person's part, when it just doesn't work like that. You might see that your reply to this will be a potential "hit" for someone in search, maybe even ten years from now.

 

[Dcopymope]

Which one comes first to you, being redeemed from a future place of fire and brimstone where you have been assured that you will spend "eternity," or recognizing when you have wronged someone, and apologizing to them in the same forum where the wrong was committed--iow a public apology for a public wrong--and offering to make it right, and not doing it again (rebound)?

And, after all that rhetoric, you still didn't answer my basic question. Does your works come first before the finished work on the cross or not? If your works come first, then so will your judgment. A simple yes or no response would be good enough.

 

[bbyrd009]

And, after all that rhetoric, you still didn't answer my basic question. Does your works come first before the finished work on the cross or not? If your works come first, then so will your judgment. A simple yes or no response would be good enough.

for a lawyer, perhaps, but wadr i am not trying to make you happy, i am trying to get to a truth that cannot be denied. Which is why i had to answer your Q with a Q i guess, because our questions are often self-serving and essentially moot where truth is concerned, which i am hoping to make clearer.

Iow you answer my question first, and a "the former" or "the latter" will be good enough, ty. Lol

How bout you recognize my Authoritay, iow.

I've forgotten the Q now, that caused me to ask my Q, but i'll go dig it up...

Which one comes first to you, being saved by the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, or your works?

and to frame this a different way, i see that i am required to do something, in your model, to get this "being saved" thing--as a fait accompli, iow; as it has been presented to you, at least, right--is this correct? I have to do something to "be saved?"

Could you please list the things i have to do? ty
we can then go from there :)


and we might save a step if you see that the list you can give me comprises the works that you consider a legal requirement--lawyer that you are--for my "being saved."
Although i may have not put that as kindly as i could have, is this not essentially correct? A yes or no will suffice, ty.


So, another good reveal of the Unseen One, i guess, that resides in all of us.

 

[bbyrd009]

also, i see a difference in "works" and "good deeds" that is rarely brought out, that i just mention here in case someone wants to pick up on it.

 

[bbyrd009]

for a lawyer, perhaps, but wadr i am not trying to make you happy, i am trying to get to a truth that cannot be denied. Which is why i had to answer your Q with a Q i guess, because our questions are often self-serving and essentially moot where truth is concerned, which i am hoping to make clearer.

Iow you answer my question first, and a "the former" or "the latter" will be good enough, ty. Lol

How bout you recognize my Authoritay, iow.

I've forgotten the Q now, that caused me to ask my Q, but i'll go dig it up...

and to frame this a different way, i see that i am required to do something, in your model, to get this "being saved" thing--as a fait accompli, iow; as it has been presented to you, at least, right--is this correct? I have to do something to "be saved?"

Could you please list the things i have to do? ty
we can then go from there :)


and we might save a step if you see that the list you can give me comprises the works that you consider a legal requirement--lawyer that you are--for my "being saved."
Although i may have not put that as kindly as i could have, is this not essentially correct? A yes or no will suffice, ty.


So, another good reveal of the Unseen One, i guess, that resides in all of us.

and just to be clear, since i guess i am often not, i have done all of those works, ok, many of them 2 or 3 times, to, y'know, just be sure; but i notice that the next guy i sin against is not impressed with any of that, and he only wants to hear me confess, and offer to atone for my sin, and profess a desire to avoid that sin in the future--which is why i answered you in that manner, see.

 

[Dcopymope]

for a lawyer, perhaps, but wadr i am not trying to make you happy, i am trying to get to a truth that cannot be denied. Which is why i had to answer your Q with a Q i guess, because our questions are often self-serving and essentially moot where truth is concerned, which i am hoping to make clearer.

Iow you answer my question first, and a "the former" or "the latter" will be good enough, ty. Lol

How bout you recognize my Authoritay, iow.

I've forgotten the Q now, that caused me to ask my Q, but i'll go dig it up...

and to frame this a different way, i see that i am required to do something, in your model, to get this "being saved" thing--as a fait accompli, iow; as it has been presented to you, at least, right--is this correct? I have to do something to "be saved?"

Could you please list the things i have to do? ty
we can then go from there :)


and we might save a step if you see that the list you can give me comprises the works that you consider a legal requirement--lawyer that you are--for my "being saved."
Although i may have not put that as kindly as i could have, is this not essentially correct? A yes or no will suffice, ty.


So, another good reveal of the Unseen One, i guess, that resides in all of us.

The one condition of being saved:

(Romans 10:8-10) "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; {9} That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. {10} For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Your only requirement comes with confession, whatever works you performed before this day will mean nothing on the day of the lord. Your works will not save you. If you haven't confessed that Jesus is Lord who created the heavens and the earth, who reconciled the six day creation to the Father for its future redemption with his death and resurrection, then you will face judgement like everyone else for your works. You can call your works "charity" if you wish, how you try and change the meaning of the word "works" will not make a lick of difference when we get to Revelation 20. I see you are trying to make this simple truth out to be more complex than it is, but really, its not rocket science.

 

[bbyrd009]

well, i agree there, but i suggest that the Rom 10 passage can be taken to mean either "all i have to do is say that Jesus is Lord, and i am saved," or that a fuller understanding of "confess with the mouth" might be had, wherein one's other utterances are taken into account, as other Scripture suggests. After all, "many will cry 'Lord, Lord.'" Now i don't mean to say that that isn't a good beginning, but i have seen the one seven times worse off for having done so. Not everyone who says to Him "Lord" will be accepted, right? So this has to be considered.

And regardless of what i call my actions, it is my heart that determines whether i am doing works or good deeds, imo; the first are done with an expectation of payment for services rendered, and the second are not, but cover many sins. And like the difference in faith and beliefs, these seem to be purposely conflated in Scripture, until one digs into the Lexicon, and i think this is done on purpose; so that, like the Rom 10 passage, one may see and not see, if that is their desire. See, once you have become convinced that all that Christ requires is some altar works, a little "confession" in public--which is somehow made into a big deal because, after all, we are doing it in front of peers, usually quite self-consciously, etc--then it becomes easier to read over the many parts that suggest otherwise, and even the direct reference that "not everyone who says 'Lord' will see the kingdom."

So it is a simple truth; when it becomes obvious to a person that they have wronged someone else in that person's mind, an apology is in order--which they usually don't get--and an attempt--or an assurance--to not do that to them in the future is indicated, which is something that even the blind generally carry out on some level, simply by way of getting along; we don't do certain things around certain people because we know that it bugs them, and it isn't worth having our way to suffer their wrath. Which is a long way from anticipating and avoiding causing hurt to someone with no wrath to exercise over us, but it is after all 'the blind.'

And if someone who sins against me is led to believe that they can confess their sin to someone else and get absolved, what is that to me, if he has not made things right to me in the process? What do i care how many Hail Marys he might have said, if the spirit of this past sin has not been dispelled? Little children get this pretty easily, don't they? Yet i am the one being accused of making the simple into the complex.

As for Rev 20, there is a lot of symbology in there that you might relate to some imaginary places, in some imaginary future, forgetting perhaps that the intention is "The Revelation of Christ," which happens here on earth. And with all due respect it is the same lack of understanding; once one is convinced that a morning of public confession somehow admits them to the club, well then the ring is put in their nose, and they can be led pretty much anywhere. I was, too. So now that the standard premise of confession unto salvation has been dismantled--with other Scripture, which i didn't quote verbatim but i can if you like--a different conception of the Revelation can also take place, which will equally be relatable to one's daily walk, in my experience. And the Eschatologists will be revealed as the diviners that they are.

 

[shnarkle]

also, i see a difference in "works" and "good deeds" that is rarely brought out, that i just mention here in case someone wants to pick up on it.

I haven't heard this distinction before, unless it is the good works verse fruit distinction. In other words, the idea is that When we're working either for our salvation or to document our salvation we're just taking fruit and stapling it up onto the tree for all to see. When it is real fruit then it is a systemic process that is being accomplished completely by God. We're just the bud break being broken open as God's will is manifested.

I heard one pastor put it this way: "we have to repent of our damnable good works".

 

[bbyrd009]

I haven't heard this distinction before, unless it is the good works verse fruit distinction. In other words, the idea is that When we're working either for our salvation or to document our salvation we're just taking fruit and stapling it up onto the tree for all to see. When it is real fruit then it is a systemic process that is being accomplished completely by God. We're just the bud break being broken open as God's will is manifested.

I heard one pastor put it this way: "we have to repent of our damnable good works".

ha, ya, nice. There are no "good works," iow.

 

[epostle1]

I haven't heard this distinction before, unless it is the good works verse fruit distinction. In other words, the idea is that When we're working either for our salvation or to document our salvation we're just taking fruit and stapling it up onto the tree for all to see. When it is real fruit then it is a systemic process that is being accomplished completely by God. We're just the bud break being broken open as God's will is manifested.

I heard one pastor put it this way: "we have to repent of our damnable good works".

Is that pastor a Christian?

Phil. 4:17 – Paul says “I seek the fruit which increases to your credit.” Fruits (good works) increase our justification. Paul says these works increase our “credit,” which is also called “merit.” These merits bring forth more graces from God, furthering increasing our justification as we are so disposed. But the fruits, works, and merits are all borne from God’s unmerited and undeserved mercy won for us by Jesus Christ.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are excellent and profitable to men (just like the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:16). Good deeds further justify us before God. This verse should be contrasted with Titus 3:5, where we are not saved by works of righteousness “we have done.”In this verse what “we have done” refers to a work of law or obligation for which we seek payment. But verse 5 also says the “washing of regeneration” in reference to baptism saves, which is a work of grace, for which we are rewarded by God in Christ. There is a distinction between “works of law or obligation” and “works of grace.”

Matt. 5:2-11 - Jesus' teaching of the beatitudes goes beyond faith - being pure, merciful, and peacemakers are all good works. They are acts of the will that are necessary for a right relationship with God.

Matt. 5:16 - Jesus confirms this by teaching, "let your light shine before men that they may see your 'good works' and give glory to God." Good works glorify God and increase our justification before the Father.

Matt. 5:44-47 - this means even loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us. Love is a good work, an act of the will.

Matt. 7:19-23 - just saying "Lord, Lord" and accepting Jesus as personal Savior is not enough. We must also bear the fruit of good works.

Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31 - Jesus says You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love is a good work - an act of the intellect and will.

Mark 9:39 - Jesus said no one who does good works in His name will be able to soon after speak evil of Him. Good works justify us before God.

John 5:39-42 - knowing the Scriptures is not enough if you do not have love in your heart.
John 8:31-32 - Jesus requires works even from those who believe in Him. Mere belief is not enough.
John 13:34-35 - Jesus gives us a new commandment, that we love one another as He loves us. He commands love which is an act of our will.
John 14:15 - Jesus says, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." This requires works, not just faith (and not faith alone).
John 15:12 - this is My commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. Love is both a cause and the fruit of our justification.
Rom. 12:10 - Paul commands us to love one another. Love is a good work, an act of the intellect and will, not just a feeling.

 

[bbyrd009]

works and good deeds are also conflated in the Bible, yes, and it takes some sleuthing to differentiate them, like with faith and beliefs. that's kind of what we were looking at. So in that vein, Love might be said to be more of a good deed than a work, which might imply "something that i could do to gain salvation," iow. Otherwise, if the distinction is not made, we must invent some word to make the distinction. I cannot do any works to make me acceptable to God; and a good deed covers many sins.

 

[Mungo]

Protestants often accuse Catholics of “salvation by works”, particularly in regard to baptism.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives several definitions of work. The first and most general is:
“activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result.”

By this definition “believing” and “confessing with the lips” is work. Therefore Protestants believe in “salvation by works”. Of course they deny it – but then Catholics also deny they believe in “salvation by works”. Instead of throwing slogans around we need to look at what scripture says about this.

St. Paul’s writes much about salvation (justification) and works in his letter to the Romans. A key text is Rom 3:19-28, and a key phrase that Paul uses in this is “works of the law”
20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
(He also uses the phrase works of the law in Gal 2:1, 3:2, 5 & 10)

This implies that Paul recognises two classes of “works” – works of the law and works that are not works of the law. We’ll come to the latter later. But let us concentrate on what Paul means by works of the law.

In Romans 2 he writes
25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
And in Gal 3:10
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."

Clearly by works of the law Paul is referring to the Jewish law.

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary helpfully gives a definition of this class of works - “such activity as a means of earning income”.

It is in this sense of earning something that Paul uses the word in Rom 4:4 when he writes:
“Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.” (Rom 4:4)

Works done under the law are those done under some sort of legal contract that try to put an obligation on God – to make salvation our due. We try to earn our salvation

If we work, as for an employer, expecting wages as our due then we will be judged under that Law and will always be found wanting and will be condemned.

That is why we can only receive salvation as a gift. It cannot be earned.
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

There is another class of works – works that are not works of the law.
The third definition in Concise Oxford English Dictionary is helpful here – “Theology, good or moral deeds”

Doing “good works” give us merit in the sight of God because they are done out of love and do not attempt to put God under any obligation to reward us.
One definition of merit from the Collins Concise English Dictionary is:
“ a deserving or commendable quality or act.”

Note: in Catholic theology, merit means rewardable. It does not imply earn.

When we do something out of love and not as a contract under Law we do a deserving or commendable act and God will graciously reward us.

“love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35)

“I the Lord search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.” (Jer 17:10)

“Whoever does good has his reward, which each receives according to his deeds.”(Sir 16:14)

We could give examples of these three definitions of work as follows:

1. – Digging my garden (general definition).
2. – Digging someone else’s garden for a wage (work as earning income)
3. – Digging an elderly neighbour’s garden out of charity (work as a good deed and meritorious – a commendable act)

Paul writes: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast”. (Eph 2:8-9)

Whereas James writes: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (Jas 2:14)

These two are not contradictory if we understand that Paul is referring to works of the law and James is referring to good deeds, meritorious acts, just as in the examples he gives in the following verses:
“If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?”

These are the type of works Jesus refers to in Mt 25:31-45 and Mt 10:41-42

Further, from my examples of digging a garden we can see that it is not the act itself that is good or bad but the cause of the act, the motive. If the act is motivated by love then it is meritorious and God will reward us. If it is driven by other motives (e.g. to get admiration from others) then we may get no reward, at least from God.
“Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven…….” (Mt 6:1 & following verses)

Finally whatever good acts we do are God’s actions in us not just our own. Catholics believe that grace comes in two kinds, sanctifying grace and actual grace. Actual grace is the prompts and help that God gives us to do good deeds. When we do a good deed it is God working in us.

[SIZE=12pt]Or, as [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]St.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] Augustine said "when you crown our merits, you crown your own gifts,"[/SIZE]

 

[mjrhealth]

we do a deserving or commendable act and God will graciously reward us.

No such thing as a deserving act, thats simply putting works under another name

Luk 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
Luk 17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
Luk 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

 

[Mungo]

No such thing as a deserving act, thats simply putting works under another name

Luk 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
Luk 17:8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
Luk 17:9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
Luk 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Try reading the whole post and not scanning it to take a small bit out of context.

 

[mjrhealth]

Try reading the whole post and not scanning it to take a small bit out of context.

Read it all, that bit doesnt fit in, everyone wants God to reward them, as you pointed out just as I did, we do what we do for it is why we are here, not for any reward.

 

[Mungo]

Read it all, that bit doesnt fit in, everyone wants God to reward them, as you pointed out just as I did, we do what we do for it is why we are here, not for any reward.

You must live a very joyless life; doing nothing out of love; doing nothing out of friendship; doing everything out of duty.

The example you give is an example of doing work that earns something. A servant is paid for doing a job. Having done the job he is legally entitled to his wages; they are his due. If you are following that model then you are trying to earn your salvation.
“Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.” (Rom 4:4).
This is what Paul condemns as "works of the law".

You have ignored the alternative kind of work that I gave, that of work under grace - works of love. When we do such works we have no legal right to a reward.
“love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35).

However we know God will reward us in some way, but we cannot expect or demand it.
“Whoever does good has his reward, which each receives according to his deeds.”(Sir 16:14)

“But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Mt 6:3-4)

"He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." (Mt 10:41-42

 

[epostle1]

FICTIONAL DIALOGUE ON JUSTIFICATION

Martin [Protestant]: It baffles me, Joe, how you Catholics can believe you’re saved by works, when the Bible says “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn 3:16).

Joe [Catholic]: We don’t. Let me explain. First of all, belief in Christ means also to obey Him. This is shown in passages where the opposite of belief is disobedience, such as in 1 Pet 2:7 and John 3:36, where “believeth not” (KJV) is often translated “does not obey.” *
* e.g., NASB, RSV, NEB

But Paul says “by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works . . .” (Eph 2:8-9).

Joe: We Catholics agree that salvation is completely the result of God’s grace. We condemned the heresy Pelagianism, which denied this, way back in in the 6th century.* However, the Bible doesn’t separate the “works of faith” (Gal 5:6, 1 Thess 1:3, 2 Thess 1:11), preceded and caused by grace, from salvation. It only condemns self-righteous “works” done apart from grace and faith.
* 2nd Council of Orange, 529 A.D.

Martin: Aw, come on! You can’t prove that from the Bible!

Joe: Quite the contrary, Martin! The Bible clearly teaches that “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas 2:24; cf. 1:21-27, 2:14-26). St. Paul tells us to “work out your own salvation . . . for it is God which worketh in you . . .” (Phil 2:12-13; cf. 1 Cor 3:8-9, 15:10). We will be judged after death based on our merit and works, which will determine our reward (Mt 16:27, Rom 2:5-13). But all our works derive their merit from Jesus’ work on our behalf. Martin Luther introduced “faith alone,” which is foreign to St. Paul and the Bible.

Martin: God merely declares us righteous, even though we’re still sinners, since our righteousness is like “filthy rags” (Is 64:6). We can do nothing whatsoever to help save ourselves. Only Jesus’ blood covering up our sin (Rom 5:9) accounts for anything in God’s eyes.

Joe: Again, that’s Luther’s novel interpretation, because he denied our free will altogether. Our good works aren’t worthless because they are derived, and flow from Jesus’ work for us. Man didn’t become a worm in God’s eyes because of the Fall of Adam and Eve. This is another falsehood begun by Luther: that is, because God is absolutely holy, therefore man must be utterly evil. This is contrary to the biblical teaching that man was created in God’s image (Gen 1:26-7). The Bible’s whole thrust is that God makes us holy when we freely follow Him. When referring to God’s removal of our sin, it uses words such as “cleansed” (1 Jn 1:7, 9), purged” (Heb 1:3), “blotted out” (Acts 3:19), “wash away” (Acts 22:16), and “new creature” (2 Cor 5:17).

Martin: That’s sanctification, not justification. Now you’re mixing apples and oranges. Protestants strongly urge doing good works, but these cannot and do not have anything to do with salvation.

Joe: So works are sort of like “Brownie points” with God?

Martin: [laughs] Well, I think the Catholic view is much more like “Brownie points” than ours! We think that good works will get you more rewards in heaven, but they can’t help you get to heaven.

Joe: I think St. Paul would disagree with that. He doesn’t set up this false dichotomy between faith and works which Protestantism created. He says that Christians are simultaneously “washed, sanctified, and justified” (1 Cor 6:11; cf. 1:30), and that the “doers of the law shall be justified” (Rom 2:13). In Romans 5:18-19, he says that “justification” is being “made righteous,” just as through Adam’s disobedience, we were “made sinners.” Since sin is actual, so is righteousness. Justification is not merely an external and legal declaration, but a real change. Luther was wrong.

Martin: But don’t Catholics ever know that they’ve been saved (1 Jn 5:13)? Isn’t that being in constant bondage?

Joe: The only assurance in Scripture is that of obedience (Mt 25:31-46, 7:16-27). There are many warnings against falling away from salvation (Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, 1 Tim 1:19, 4:1, Heb 3:12-14, 12:14-15, 2 Pet 2:20-21, Rev 2:4-5). For St. Paul, salvation is like a marathon (1 Cor 9:24-27). One must be disciplined and trained, lest he be disqualified and become a castaway on the Last Day. So salvation is a lifelong process, not just a matter of one-time repentance. St. Paul stresses this again and again.

Martin: Well, I must admit you’ve given me a lot of Scripture verses to ponder. I always thought that Catholics couldn’t come up with any biblical support for their views, especially concerning salvation. If you guys don’t believe in salvation by works, maybe we’re not as different as it is made out, and are indeed brothers in Christ. That’s really good news! Thanks for sharing this information with me.