Jim Anderson appears to be a Presbyterian, and is a former Catholic anti-Catholic. The following exchange occurred on a public Facebook page, below a shared meme that I had posted, regarding Catholic liturgy. Jim’s words will be in blue. This is a continuation of the exchange: Dialogue on Meritorious Works & the Gospel (6-30-23).
*****
Dave, speaking to yourself is not a good sign. Please lose the extreme arrogance, and note that I said that I don’t hang around on Facebook waiting for people to comment, but have other priorities.
*
*
Dave, you spent a lot of time throwing out a lot of comments, and links, likely none of which I will go to, since I have read practically every argument that official or unofficial Catholicism makes, but since you seem so focused on selling everything (per Matthew 10), we can remain there if you prefer. You said that it doesn’t apply to you (a “special situation”) and you haven’t sold everything.
*
You’re not the only one I’m writing to. I take the opportunity to educate the public about these matters. Others may choose to read what you ignore, since you [choke] already know everything about Catholicism and all of the arguments that her defenders make. That being the case, why is it I have to ask you three times to answer simple questions about one Bible scene?
*
Dave, do you think that Jesus was using the “sell everything” as a general requirement for salvation, or a specific test of the young rule? If the former, you are doomed, by your own admission, since you haven’t sold everything.
*
I already answered that above (twice):
*
1) “I never asserted that selling all of one’s possessions is required of *everyone*. You have simply erroneously projected that onto me and (possibly) the Catholic position. The parable of the talents and many other passages contradict such an assertion. So, nice try. Jesus told this one person that a work was required for his salvation. How can this be? How does it square with your unbiblical, extreme ‘absolutely no works or merit’ position?”
2) “Note that this isn’t required of every man to do. It’s not a general rule of Christianity. But for the rich young ruler, it was an absolute necessity. Most commentators think that it was because the ruler had made money his idol, putting it above God in his allegiance. That’s why he had to part with it; so that God would occupy the highest place in his life. In any event, it is a requirement for his salvation. Once again, it is a good work that is made central.”
*
If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said.
*
Already answered that, too, twice:
*
1) “If you say, then, that this passage is irrelevant for all people, since it was a unique situation, then I counter with Matthew 25 (already presented) which has to do with all of us at the Judgment, and with 48 other passages regarding works and their relation to salvation.”
[Note: I highlighted and cited at length Matthew 25 in particular and several others from my list of 50]
*2) “This is also notable in illustrating that salvation is not a cookie-cutter matter. What is required for one person (in terms of works that exhibit faith) may not be for the next.”
*
The fact that you weren’t aware that I had answered these questions, proves that you’re not even reading my comments. This is a constant annoyance in “dialogues” with anti-Catholics as well. One gives a reply and it’s like it doesn’t even register and one is forced to repeat what was already stated: making for tedium for poor, unfortunate readers. The other tactic is attempting to switch the topic, in order to evade difficult topics.
The fact that you weren’t aware that I had answered these questions, proves that you’re not even reading my comments. This is a constant annoyance in “dialogues” with anti-Catholics as well. One gives a reply and it’s like it doesn’t even register and one is forced to repeat what was already stated: making for tedium for poor, unfortunate readers. The other tactic is attempting to switch the topic, in order to evade difficult topics.
*
If the latter, then one cannot then generalize that works are needed for salvation, as Pelagius and the Catholic catechism said. And, do you notice the “follow me” at the end of all that?
*
There is indeed a consistent message of salvation that Jesus taught. He is God. He came down from heaven. He is the Messiah, prophesied in the writings of old, the word of God, throughout history. And He emphasized, over and over and over, that one must believe in Him to be saved. Belief. True, sincere, total belief. That’s more than the demons, who only believed that He was God. One must believe that He is the Heir of all things, the One through Whom the world was created, the Exact imprint of God’s nature, the perfect High Priest, the Messiah, the only One who can forgive sins, by His perfect sacrifice on the cross, accomplished in history (“once for all”). Completely done, and wholly sufficient. You said you have questions. They tend to get buried in your many posts, so please kindly ask them again, numbering them, and not posting dozens of unrelated or repetitive comments that get things lost. Thanks.
There is indeed a consistent message of salvation that Jesus taught. He is God. He came down from heaven. He is the Messiah, prophesied in the writings of old, the word of God, throughout history. And He emphasized, over and over and over, that one must believe in Him to be saved. Belief. True, sincere, total belief. That’s more than the demons, who only believed that He was God. One must believe that He is the Heir of all things, the One through Whom the world was created, the Exact imprint of God’s nature, the perfect High Priest, the Messiah, the only One who can forgive sins, by His perfect sacrifice on the cross, accomplished in history (“once for all”). Completely done, and wholly sufficient. You said you have questions. They tend to get buried in your many posts, so please kindly ask them again, numbering them, and not posting dozens of unrelated or repetitive comments that get things lost. Thanks.
*
What are your questions? Number them. I am happy to continue on the topics you present, which are contradictory in your own opinion, but you seem insistent on the questions you have, so please present them clearly, numbered.
*
For the fourth time:
*
*
When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mk 10:21), was that 1) salvific, and 2) a [good] work, and 3) a meritorious work? Do you need it in all caps? What is this, The Twilight Zone?
*
*
Dave, thanks for clearly asking the questions so it is clear. I will bypass the snark, because that’s just how Catholics are.
*
What you see as “snark” is a semi-humorous barb on my part due to the frustration of having to repeat something four times, that was perfectly clear the first time. It’s absurd. Once should be enough. You clearly attempted to avoid the questions, so I kept asking until you answered, because I don’t play games in discussions. If you want to have a serious discussion, great; then respond to provocative questions coming from your dialogical opponent (just as I have to yours: at great length), rather than seek to evade, change the subject, and insult: all of which you have tried without success, because none of that works with me.
*
Of course, I recognize that you ask them not because you actually want to know the answers, but to take whatever I say, disagree with it, and make some sort of Catholic point. So, just be up front and make that point now, if you would be so kind.
*
I converted from evangelicalism to Catholicism and have undergone several other major conversions in my life. I am always open to being convinced and to changing my mind. What I asked were socratic questions (something Jesus often did, too), that flowed from your denial that this passage teaches Catholic soteriology. If you want to take a position I consider unwarranted, and discuss it with me, then expect to be grilled and questioned. I’m an apologist. You’ll have to defend it. If that’s not to your liking, just say so and we’re done. “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” You came on like gangbusters at the beginning, so I figured that you could take it.
*
Here are the answers for your questions.
*
“When Jesus said, and advised, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mt 10:21), was that 1) salvific?
*
No, of course not. Man cannot absolve the debt of sin that he was born with my simply selling material things. Jesus in this passage was testing the man’s belief, his commitment. You yourself said that this wasn’t salvific. There aren’t 100 different gospels, different paths to salvation. There is but one, so Jesus did not teach that this work saves this person, but not others.
*
*
It was certainly, undeniably salvific. Remember, the exchange started with the man asking Jesus: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mk 10:17). That’s what it’s all about. Since that “sets the scene,” therefore, how Jesus answers must necessarily have to do with what we do that merits eternal life and eschatological salvation.
*
*
You say that Jesus “was testing the man’s belief, his commitment.” Yes, of course He was. He said that he had to give away all that he owned in order to be saved. That was the test, and the answer to his question. It’s clear that grace enabled him to keep the commandments (as Jesus inquired about). It’s equally clear that the man had faith, since he had observed all the commandments since his youth. He was following God and His commandments.
*
What remained was his idolatry to money: the besetting sin of rich and wealthy people. He couldn’t be saved and still have something in his heart that he placed above allegiance to God. And how would he rectify that? It wasn’t by kneeling and saying the sinner’s prayer, and telling Jesus how great and wonderful He was.
What remained was his idolatry to money: the besetting sin of rich and wealthy people. He couldn’t be saved and still have something in his heart that he placed above allegiance to God. And how would he rectify that? It wasn’t by kneeling and saying the sinner’s prayer, and telling Jesus how great and wonderful He was.
*
That didn’t cut it, since Jesus said, “Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). So this was an instance of Jesus telling a person to do something, and to do a thing that would be a requirement for him to be saved. If he does the good work, he’ll be saved, because Jesus said the result of doing so was that he “will have treasure in heaven.” This was the one thing he lacked, according to Jesus; so he had to do it. Therefore, it was a required good work, without which he could not and would not be saved or enter heaven.
That didn’t cut it, since Jesus said, “Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lk 6:46). So this was an instance of Jesus telling a person to do something, and to do a thing that would be a requirement for him to be saved. If he does the good work, he’ll be saved, because Jesus said the result of doing so was that he “will have treasure in heaven.” This was the one thing he lacked, according to Jesus; so he had to do it. Therefore, it was a required good work, without which he could not and would not be saved or enter heaven.
“and 2) a [good] work?”
*
It depends on your definition of “good” and that’s not hedging, it’s acknowledging that what God defines as “good” may be different than how men define it. You know this, so hopefully there is no controversy here. Giving help to the poor is a good thing.
*
Well, that is easily answered in this instance because Jesus defined the thing as the work or action that would allow this man to go to heaven and be saved. Therefore, it must be “good” because certainly a bad work or action (a sin) could not fill that function. So this is a no-brainer. Of course it is a good work, according to God the Son.
*
*
Your problem and dilemma is that you maintain the standard Calvinist- or Baptist- or evangelical-type position that works have absolutely nothing to do with salvation. But the Bible and Jesus assert that they have a necessary connection, alongside (always) faith and grace. They can’t be removed from the equation. I have collected 50 passages that prove this undeniable connection with regard to going to heaven, and fifty more from Paul alone that teach the intrinsic harmony and togetherness of faith, grace, and works. You can try to ignore and dismiss and rationalize all that away but it’s just not possible.
*
*
“and 3) a meritorious work?”
*
Not for salvation, no.
*
It’s impossible to assert that because it is directly contrary to what Jesus taught: that this work would be what allowed the man to be saved, alongside his faith and God’s enabling grace that lies behind any and every good thing we do.
*
But, whether for the saved believer, or the unsaved and condemned person, works are “rewarded”. The saved believer receives crowns in heaven based on his or her works, but that is after they are saved.
*
The unsaved, condemned person gets their “reward” that all deserve at birth: an eternity in hell, regardless of whether they give to the poor all their lives. Good works, the ones that are worthy and obedient to God, are those that are done by the saved believer. Ephesians 2:10, but there are lots of teachings on this. This answers your questions fully, and completely.
*
We do indeed receive differential rewards in heaven. Both sides agree about that. But that’s not what is in play here. The question was how a man can attain heaven, not just rewards in heaven. Jesus’ answer proved that the man would be in heaven if he did the required work. It’s a compelling proof of Catholic soteriology and an unanswerable disproof of Protestant soteriology.
*
*
Jesus didn’t say that the ruler was already saved and that he’d get more crowns in heaven by giving away his riches. He said that doing so would be the immediate or last thing that saved him, per the original inquiry of how to be saved. You’re simply projecting Protestant traditions of men onto the passage when they aren’t there at all. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.
*
*
How would a Catholic properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic questions of certain evangelical Protestants, like Presbyterian Matt Slick, who runs the CARM website? He asked me: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”
*
*
He’s completely well-intentioned and has the highest motivations. He desires that folks should be saved. But he is dead wrong in his assumptions, when they are weighed against the overwhelming, (far as I can tell) unanimous biblical record. Our answer to his question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:
*
*
1) I am characterized by righteousness.
2) I have integrity.
3) I’m not wicked.
4) I’m upright in heart.
5) I’ve done good deeds.
6) I have good ways.
7) I’m not committing abominations.
8 ) I have good conduct.
9) I’m not angry with my brother.
10) I’m not insulting my brother.
11) I’m not calling someone a fool.
12) I have good fruits.
13) I do the will of God.
14) I hear Jesus’ words and do them.
15) I endured to the end.
16) I fed the hungry.
17) I provided drink to the thirsty.
18) I clothed the naked.
19) I welcomed strangers.
20) I visited the sick.
21) I visited prisoners.
22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.
23) I’m not weighed down with dissipation.
24) I’m not weighed down with drunkenness.
25) I’m not weighed down with the cares of this life.
26) I’m not ungodly.
27) I don’t suppress the truth.
28) I’ve done good works.
29) I obeyed the truth.
30) I’m not doing evil.
31) I have been a “doer of the law.”
32) I’ve been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.
33) I’m unblameable in holiness.
34) I’ve been wholly sanctified.
35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.
36) I know God.
37) I’ve obeyed the gospel.
38) I’ve shared Christ’s sufferings.
39) I’m without spot or blemish.
40) I’ve repented.
41) I’m not a coward.
42) I’m not faithless.
43) I’m not polluted.
44) I’m not a murderer.
45) I’m not a fornicator.
46) I’m not a sorcerer.
47) I’m not an idolater.
48) I’m not a liar.
49) I invited the lame to my feast.
50) I invited the blind to my feast.
*
I understand your position. You believe that Jesus gave perhaps many different paths to heaven, since when questioned, you acknowledged that you did not, in fact, sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. You think that that means to salvation was just for one man. So, since I have accurately answered your questions (you disagree, but that only makes it a disagreement), please answer an important one for me.
So, since the entire bible is arguably contemporaneous, is there any message for the unsaved today that is the one gospel, the one path to salvation? And if so, what is it, in succinct terms?
*
The gospel:
*
*
Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
*
Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4: “Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”
*
*
So this is faith and works, that go hand in hand, as in 99 other passages I have documented. Paul happens not to mention grace here, but of course he often does; for example, here is Paul discussing both grace and faith for justification and salvation:
*
Romans 3:24-26 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; [26] it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
*
But in the chapter before he also stressed works as part of the equation:
*
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
*
So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith. All of his passages considered together undeniably teach this combination, not faith alone.
*
*
And of course Jesus agrees with this. He talks about faith in Him, and also many times about works being required for salvation. He doesn’t mention grace, but John 1:16-17 states: “And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
*
*
You said something very profound, perhaps unintentionally:
*
So, as I have reiterated again and again, for Paul, salvation is by grace, through faith, which by its very nature is manifested and worked-through by good works, that proceed from this same grace and faith.
*
Yes, salvation is by faith, belief, in Christ alone and His perfect sacrifice on the cross. That saving faith, which is given by God’s grace and not merited, is manifested in the fruits of salvation, which is works. Thank you. You have now stated biblical doctrine on salvation, though you don’t recognize the many texts that you are told mean that you can earn salvation, but are actually a description of the saved believer. The entire book of 1 John, for example, tells the saved believer of his or her assurance, and what they now have, but it also serves as a test for unbelievers.
*
You still don’t understand our view (or the biblical one). Don’t feel bad. Many many Protestants do not, because they’ve been taught so many caricatures and twisted versions of Catholic soteriology. It’s grace + faith, and an intrinsic and inevitable part of genuine faith — without which it is “dead” — is works. In that specific sense, these good works proceeding from both grace and faith are meritorious and necessary in the overall scenario of how one is saved and goes to heaven.
*
*
I have not stated Protestant soteriological doctrine (that I used to believe as strongly as you do). You mistakenly think I stumbled into it because you don’t grasp the Catholic position on these matters, and you think I don’t understand yours. In fact I understand it way better than you do because I was an evangelical Protestant, too, was an apologist then as well, and have studied all sides of this issue for the past 32 years as a Catholic, and had innumerable debates and written books about it.
*
*
Protestants separate good works into a separate, optional category, under the name of “sanctification” and claim that — while they are praiseworthy and important and ought to be present — they have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. And they claim that they are done in gratitude to God for a salvation already attained (faith alone / imputed / extrinsic justification). You know the playbook and the talking points well, and have stated them in a textbook manner. There was no need because I already know what Protestants teach about it.
*
My 100 passages, which you still blow over and don’t seriously consider, are not saying that. They tie works directly in as one necessary cause of salvation, alongside grace and faith. They don’t make works optional in the question of salvation. I showed, for example, that in the rich young ruler scene, the man’s salvation was directly dependent on whether he gave up his riches, which is a good and meritorious work (all of which you have irrationally denied), not simply mental acceptance of a doctrine in his head. The NT isn’t Protestant. Jesus and Paul would flunk out of Protestant seminaries.
*
My 100 passages, which you still blow over and don’t seriously consider, are not saying that. They tie works directly in as one necessary cause of salvation, alongside grace and faith. They don’t make works optional in the question of salvation. I showed, for example, that in the rich young ruler scene, the man’s salvation was directly dependent on whether he gave up his riches, which is a good and meritorious work (all of which you have irrationally denied), not simply mental acceptance of a doctrine in his head. The NT isn’t Protestant. Jesus and Paul would flunk out of Protestant seminaries.
*
The rich young ruler is a quintessential example of what I’m talking about (that’s why it’s such a superb, unanswerable Catholic argument). He was saved by grace, through faith (he kept the commandments — works again — because he was faithful), and this faith would have also expressed its authenticity in an act of giving up his possessions (had he actually chosen that course), which would prove that he is no longer making riches his idol, and this would then allow him to go to heaven. It was the only thing he lacked, said Jesus.
*
An “optional” thing is not described as a thing that one “lacks.” If I had chocolate ice cream for lunch, Jesus wouldn’t have told me, “one thing you lack: you didn’t have vanilla ice cream for lunch.” That’s absurd because one doesn’t talk like that about optional choices.
*
*
An “optional” thing is not described as a thing that one “lacks.” If I had chocolate ice cream for lunch, Jesus wouldn’t have told me, “one thing you lack: you didn’t have vanilla ice cream for lunch.” That’s absurd because one doesn’t talk like that about optional choices.
*
In case anyone missed the point (and you did), Jesus states again that the whole thing had to do with how one is saved and how one goes to heaven:
*
Mark 10:23-25 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” [24] And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! [25] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
*
In other words, He was expanding upon the meaning of what just happened. The rich young ruler asked how he could go to heaven. Jesus told him how (do a good work proving that he had forsaken idolatry) and the man refused. So Jesus commented how hard it was for rich people to go to heaven. This one declined his chance to do so by not following Jesus’ advice.
*
*
Yet you sit there and pretend that it has nothing to do with his salvation; only his rewards in heaven. Those notions are not in the text at all. If in fact they were, Jesus would have said, instead, something like, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to receive great rewards in heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to receive great rewards in heaven.”
*
*
The entire scene would have read vastly differently if Jesus taught faith alone like Protestants do. He would have simply told the man to have faith in Him, and never would have mentioned the commandments or giving away his riches, just like you would likely never talk that way out on the street witnessing and sharing the gospel (as I have done hundreds of times).
*
It’s extraordinarily clear what was going on there and what it means for soteriology. Only those who already irrationally, inconsistently hold to an unbiblical tradition of men fail to see it, because they refuse to see it. Jesus talked about this sort of thing:
*
It’s extraordinarily clear what was going on there and what it means for soteriology. Only those who already irrationally, inconsistently hold to an unbiblical tradition of men fail to see it, because they refuse to see it. Jesus talked about this sort of thing:
*
John 9:40-41 Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?” [41] Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,’ your guilt remains.
*
Concerning your list, all of which are things that were contemporaneous to Jesus’ teaching, and while I believe that the bible is meant to everyone today, your hermeneutic may dispute that.
*
*
Dave, this is not a snark, or humorous in any way, but your list uses the word “I” in each and every reason that you provide. According to you, your salvation is earned, merited by you. I would humbly submit that your works cannot erase the sin debt that you were born with, and which you earn every day. God is holy. You are not, and thus deserving of an eternity in hell as punishment….just like each and every created human who ever lived, myself included.
*
*
There is a consistent teaching by Jesus Christ that tells us how we can be reconciled with God, and avoid the eternity of excruciating punishment in hell that we deserve. It is not clear that you know it. It is belief in Him alone, and in His “once for all” perfect sacrifice on the cross.
*
2 Cor 5:21
2 Cor 5:21
John 6:37-44 (all of John 6, actually)
Romans 5:1-3
Ephesians 2:1-10
Titus 3:3-7
1 John 5:13
*
Once again, you miss the context and the point I was making by ignoring crucial points and distinctions, in your rush to “prove” that I and Catholics supposedly believe in a works salvation, that we deny. This is always how anti-Catholics argue, because they are ignorant regarding this matter and blissfully unaware of it.
*
*
I was initially responding to the classic Protestant evangelistic query (often expressed to Catholics). In this case, I cited the actual words to me, of Presbyterian anti-Catholic apologist Matt Slick of CARM: “If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.”
*
*
This is why all my answers begin with “I”. I just didn’t say “because” in every one. In other words, instead of answering “Because I did work x and work y,” etc. I just said, “I did x,” “I did y,” etc. In doing so I was citing Scripture directly in every case (50 of ’em), in order to illustrate how the Bible actually answers this question. It turned out to be quite differently from what Slick and Protestants would have predicted.
*
*
But Catholics don’t believe in salvation by works alone. We believe in the combination of grace-faith-meritorious works that always proceed from grace and genuine faith, as I have explained, and will not bother doing so again. That is not Pelagianism. And if you can’t figure out what the difference is, that fault lies with you, not with us. You’re blinded by your false and unbiblical “either/or” premises. We explain it till we’re blue in the face. I have at least forty articles just on this point alone, if you want to get up to speed.
*
*
But you have already said you won’t read my links, because you know everything about us, so . . . “You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
*
*
You do not understand our teaching. I’ve never once met an anti-Catholic in 32 years who did. You are woefully in error about what we actually teach.
*
If anyone wants to understand Catholic soteriology, I have made it easy for you:
If anyone wants to understand Catholic soteriology, I have made it easy for you:
I trust, if you are hermeneutically consistent, that you have sold all your possessions.
*
*
I’ve never been wealthy, and never will be (as first a Protestant evangelist and a full-time Catholic apologist since 2001). Therefore, riches have never been my idol, so I don’t have to get rid of everything I own in order to get my priorities straight. I have many other sins God is working on, but temptation to great riches and making them my idol has never been a problem. If it were, God would require that of me, too, since Jesus said idolaters would not go to heaven (Rev 22:15; cf. 21:8).
*
*
And Jesus taught (see John 6) that it is belief in Him alone that saves. “Repent and believe” is the gospel message. What is the will of the Father? John 6:40. Who is saved? John 6:37-39. Can there is assurance of salvation? Same verses.
*
*
Jesus taught that belief in Him saved, if it is coupled with good works (which He referred to, I believe, more times than to faith). Both are the products of God’s grace. You keep bringing up John 6. I don’t know why. It teaches that reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) in the Holy Eucharist will save one:
*
*
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.
*John 6:53-58 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.
*
Because “Many of his disciples” thought that this was “a hard saying”(6:60), they “drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66: quite appropriately). It’s the only time in the NT besides Judas that a disciple was said to forsake Him, and it was because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: and so many folks today disbelieve in this express teaching, and thus possibly endanger their salvation. You’ll say it’s all merely symbolic talk. Nonsense. See my articles:
Because “Many of his disciples” thought that this was “a hard saying”(6:60), they “drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66: quite appropriately). It’s the only time in the NT besides Judas that a disciple was said to forsake Him, and it was because of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist: and so many folks today disbelieve in this express teaching, and thus possibly endanger their salvation. You’ll say it’s all merely symbolic talk. Nonsense. See my articles:
*
John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09]*John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue) [8-16-09]*John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples [2-14-11]*Is John 6 About Holy Communion?: A Brief Summary for Those Who Deny the Eucharistic Connection Altogether [3-2-16]*Vs. James White #5: Real Eucharistic Presence or Symbolism? [9-20-19]*Apostasy of Disciples (Jn 6:66) & Protestant Commentaries [1-28-21]*Was Jesus Unclear in John 6 (Eucharist)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [11-16-21]*
These are all listed on My Eucharist web page.
*
You’re not grappling with the many relevant Bible passages I brought up, which has universally been the case with any Protestant who interacts at all with this reasoning, for fifteen years now, so we’re done here.
*
*
Dialogue isn’t just one person presenting their view, and the other presenting theirs, and never the twain shall meet, and ships passing in the night. No; it’s interacting directly with the opponent’s arguments and arguing for another position that is sincerely believed to be superior. I don’t do a one-way / double standard routine, where I interact with all of my opponent’s arguments, but they ultimately ignore mine (or give one answer and refuse to address my counter-replies, as you did). I don’t have time for much of that. But I’ll do it for a short time, for teaching purposes.
*
You refuse to do a true dialogue, so I have invested enough energy into this, and it’s time to move on. It did at least result in two helpful educational dialogues for my blog. I heartily thank you for that. I’ve come up with some new fresh biblical and logical arguments, too, which is a good thing, and they came about as a result of your intransigence and profound lack of understanding of Catholicism.
*
God bless you.
*
*
Last thing:
*
*
You seem tied up in wealth as preventing salvation. God never once teaches that the wealthy cannot enter heaven.
*
*
1. I’m “tied up” with it in exactly the same sense that Jesus was: it’s evil and will lead to hell if it becomes an idol.
*2. I never said that no rich man can enter heaven. I have made the previous point, and say that it is “difficult” for that to happen, precisely as Jesus stated.
*
I wrote on July 1, 2014 in the first comment under my own Facebook post:
*
Wealth is not bad in and of itself. Abraham and Solomon were wealthy; Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb. Greed, materialism, using and abusing the poor because of great wealth, and idolatry of money are bad.
*
Related Reading
*
Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]
*
Dialogue: Rich Young Ruler & Good Works [10-14-15]
*
Paul vs. Calvin: “Doers of the Law” Will be Justified [2004]
Catholic-Protestant Common Ground (Esp. Re Good Works) [4-8-08]
“Working Out” Salvation & Protestant Soteriology (vs. Ken Temple) [4-9-08]
Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone: Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]
*
*
*
*
*
Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]
*
*
*
*
*
*
Justification: Faith Apart From Works is Barren[4-4-94; rev. 1996]
*
*
*
Catholic Bible Verses on Sanctification and Merit [12-20-07]
*
*
Grace, Faith, Works, & Judgment: A Scriptural Exposition [12-16-09; reformulated & abridged on 3-15-17]
Bible on Participation in Our Own Salvation (Always Enabled by God’s Grace)[1-3-10]
Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]
Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]
Catholic & Calvinist Agreement on Justification & Works [2012]
Scripture on Being Co-Workers with God for Salvation [2013]
Dialogue on Faith and Works and the Relation of Each to the Final Judgment (vs. Bethany Kerr) [10-10-13]
“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]
Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Photo credit: Christ and the Rich Young Ruler (1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
Summary: Further exchanges with an anti-Catholic regarding meritorious works and the gospel, the rich young ruler, and about how Jesus Himself said we could be saved.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In