Faith plus Works...how do you know if your doing enough works?

[Albion]

Returning to the original question of faith+works and how you know if you are doing enough of the latter, acceptance by God is always a matter of faith or faithfulness (same word in Greek) yet faith is indeed a merit (like hope and love) albeit one that is given to us (Eph2:8). If one has faith, works will flow from it, in particular love (agape). The context of Paul’s polemics in Romans and Galatians is the "Judaisers" insisting on circumcision and Torah observance to be marked out (justified) as the people of God. No, says the apostle, circumcision and the like will profit us nothing, what matters (to God) is faith working through love (Gal5:6). The Matthew 25 “sheep” were accepted into the Kingdom because they had loved (shown compassion) showing they had faith. No mention is made of how much compassion or how frequently they showed it; rather they showed they possessed it and utilised it. Jesus I think therefore answers the question but no doubt raises new ones!

Some good points there, but I think yogosans went right to the crux of the issue when he asked,

I was wondering those who believe Faith and works together saves us, how do they know if they are doing ENOUGH works?

You have said that it's not legalisms and the performance of religious rituals that will save, but those churches that teach that we are saved by the works of mercy that Jesus commended to us have developed a very structured approach to the matter. It's not at all what you said. It's not just to do good and not count or rank or keep score of the acts you do.

These people do really engage in all of that, such that anyone who takes their approach seriously ought to know 'how many?' and 'what kind?' are needed. But they don't know and no one seems to know, either.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Returning to the original question of faith+works and how you know if you are doing enough of the latter, acceptance by God is always a matter of faith or faithfulness (same word in Greek) yet faith is indeed a merit (like hope and love) albeit one that is given to us (Eph2:8). If one has faith, works will flow from it, in particular love (agape).

What evidence from Eph 2:8 indicates that what is given as a gift is faith, and not salvation?

2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

v.8 begins with how one is saved, which is by grace through faith. The next phrase notes "that not of yourselves". So, that….what? Salvation. Salvation is not of yourselves.

v.9 finishes the clarification: "not as a result of works" shows that we aren't saved by works, and the reason is so that no one may boast.

So, the gift of God in v.8 refes to salvation, not faith. Rom 6:23 supports this understanding by describing eternal life as a gift of God.

Salvation and eternal life are 2 sides of the same coin. One cannot have either one alone. They always go together. The one who has eternal life is saved, and the one who is saved has eternal life.

 

[richard373]

Some good points there, but I think yogosans went right to the crux of the issue when he asked,



You have said that it's not legalisms and the performance of religious rituals that will save, but those churches that teach that we are saved by the works of mercy that Jesus commended to us have developed a very structured approach to the matter. It's not at all what you said. It's not just to do good and not count or rank or keep score of the acts you do.

These people do really engage in all of that, such that anyone who takes their approach seriously ought to know 'how many?' and 'what kind?' are needed. But they don't know and no one seems to know, either.

Hi Albion...It may not have been obvious from my post but I belong to one of “those churches” to which I guess you’re referring (i.e. RC, I was previously a Calvinist). I am not aware of working to a “structured approach” regarding the nature and category of works of mercy required although some within the Roman church may be under that misapprehension. What I am clear about from Scripture is that Jesus, Paul and John (among others) affirm that it is agape (compassionate love) that determines whether one is of God (e.g. 1Jn4:7); it fulfils the law (Rom13:8,10; Gal5:7,14) and (perhaps surprisingly) is the one quality that separates the sheep from the goats (Mt25:31-45) – surprising that is until one recognises that love derives from faith which is what ultimately “saves”.

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion...It may not have been obvious from my post but I belong to one of “those churches” to which I guess you’re referring (i.e. RC, I was previously a Calvinist). I am not aware of working to a “structured approach” regarding the nature and category of works of mercy required although some within the Roman church may be under that misapprehension.

I guess we could debate whether or not "structured" is the best term or wording, but I think it holds up. The system is carefully spelled out in some detail. It is explained how one gets to be in the state of grace, how he loses it, how he gets it back, what difference it makes if your sins are mortal or venial, which place you go to in the afterlife according to which of those sins or former sins apply to you, and so on. However, it suddenly becomes silent when the payoff questions are asked, as they often have been here. I refer to such questions as "How many" and "What kind?"

What I am clear about from Scripture is that Jesus, Paul and John (among others) affirm that it is agape (compassionate love) that determines whether one is of God (e.g. 1Jn4:7); it fulfils the law (Rom13:8,10; Gal5:7,14) and (perhaps surprisingly) is the one quality that separates the sheep from the goats (Mt25:31-45) – surprising that is until one recognises that love derives from faith which is what ultimately “saves”.

It sounds to me like you carried over a large dose of Reformed Christian thinking on these matters when you converted to Catholicism.

 

[richard373]

(To Albion) -Now you’ve defined what you mean by structured, I guess you’re right in what you say about the RC Church defining these things (not that that’s a bad thing providing they’ve got it right of course). In terms of what I have carried over from my Reformed days (28 years in fact) I retain my devotion to the Bible as the final arbiter of truth – it’s just that I’ve come to interpret it differently from the Reformers for example distinguishing between mortal and venial sins that you mention which I perceive from 1Jn5:16 rather than a Catholic Catechism. In terms of “how many” and “what kind” of good works I would distinguish between justification and reward. Love (agape) derived from faith is the “kind” or quality that needs to be displayed so as to be accepted in God’s sight (i.e. justified) – it is either there or it isn’t; one is either a Mt25 sheep or a goat. Quantity and consistency are variables that pertain to rewards within the Kingdom not acceptance into it – now that’s not Reformed and probably not always clear from Catholic teaching but it is biblical I believe.

 

[St_Worm2]

You haven't rebutted any of my statements.

Hi Wordkeeper, sorry for the delay in replying to you ..

As far as 'not' rebutting any of your statements, what else have I been doing .. I showed you, for example, why the "natural man" spoken of in Acts 2:14 is not the same as the "men of flesh" spoken of in Acts 3:1, and why your exegesis of the entire passage was incorrect.

I also corrected your opinion of Pelagius and his writings (and what you believed the EO opinion of them was) by showing you that while the EO may not hold Pelagius as a heretic in quite the same manner that the west does, they, nevertheless, refute his writings as heresy. And this is only a fraction of all that I have written to you in this thread, so I simply do not understand how you could say that I have failed to rebut any of your statements.

Of course, it was never really me answering you, rather, it is the Bible and the church that stand opposed to views (and Pelagius'). You continue:

This then is the view as it stands:

Fruit is not a natural result of good trees. It requires intent on the part of the good trees. If good trees decide to put to death the deeds of the body, they will live. If they live according to the desires of the flesh, they will die.

That's not what the Bible teaches us, this is:

"There is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart". Luke 6:43-45​

You continue:

St. Augustine .. did not know Greek, used a bad translation and formed the doctrine of original sin. When his teachings were opposed, he used Manichean argumentation to debate Pelagius. He garnered support for his views using wealth and influence and had Pelagius declared a heretic by the Western Church.

"Original Sin" resulted from the actions of our progenitors and, like the doctrine of the "Trinity", is taught in the Bible even if the term itself does not exist there. My concern in all of this was not to be "right" or "wrong", my concern in going to the lengths I have with you was all about "you" and your belief that "Christians" obey God out of the fear of damnation. That sounds more like demons who believe God exists and shudder as a result rather than like Christians.

My concern is that my reason, and the reason that every other Christian I know gives for obeying God has to do with "love", not "fear". We obey Him because we desire to please Him, because of all He has done for us.

I'm not saying that you are not a Christian, but if I believed what you do about obedience I would, at the very least, be looking at my life and understanding of the Christian faith to make sure I was actually in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10), because 'fear of Hell fire' is not the typical reason that a Christian chooses to walk with God.

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Richard, I see you are new here, so WELCOME TO CF ..

I am enjoying reading your discussion with Albion. I'll probably jump in later and comment, but for now, I just wanted to say "welcome".

Yours and His,
David

 

[Wordkeeper]

Hi Wordkeeper, sorry for the delay in replying to you ..

As far as 'not' rebutting any of your statements, what else have I been doing .. I showed you, for example, why the "natural man" spoken of in Acts 2:14 is not the same as the "men of flesh" spoken of in Acts 3:1, and why your exegesis of the entire passage was incorrect.

But the men of flesh in Acts 3:1 are good trees, yet they had not produced good fruit. That contradicts your view that good trees, spiritual men produce good fruit. It comports exactly with my view that these men were living according to the flesh and not putting to death the deeds of the body and were going to die.

I also corrected your opinion of Pelagius and his writings (and what you believed the EO opinion of them was) by showing you that while the EO may not hold Pelagius as a heretic in quite the same manner that the west does, they, nevertheless, refute his writings as heresy. And this is only a fraction of all that I have written to you in this thread, so I simply do not understand how you could say that I have failed to rebut any of your statements.

I showed you where the EO has stored a letter from Pelagius listing the doctrines attributed to him, which he denied ever teaching.

"There is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart". Luke 6:43-45​

[/QUOTE]

But the church in Corinth WAS producing bad fruit, but they were good trees, according to your definition!

"Original Sin" resulted from the actions of our progenitors and, like the doctrine of the "Trinity", is taught in the Bible even if the term itself does not exist there. My concern in all of this was not to be "right" or "wrong", my concern in going to the lengths I have with you was all about "you" and your belief that "Christians" obey God out of the fear of damnation. That sounds more like demons who believe God exists and shudder as a result rather than like Christians.

My concern is that my reason, and the reason that every other Christian I know gives for obeying God has to do with "love", not "fear". We obey Him because we desire to please Him, because of all He has done for us.

I'm not saying that you are not a Christian, but if I believed what you do about obedience I would, at the very least, be looking at my life and understanding of the Christian faith to make sure I was actually in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10), because 'fear of Hell fire' is not the typical reason that a Christian chooses to walk with God.

Yours and His,
David

Augustine made a terrible mistake when formalizing the doctrine of Original Sin, which lazy believers today have swallowed hook line and sinker:


The Original View of Original Sin


Quote

Though Augustine was convinced by the arguments of his earlier patristic peers, he made use of the apostle Paul’s letters, especially the one to the Romans, to develop his own ideas on original sin and guilt. Today, however, it is accepted that Augustine, who had never mastered the Greek language, misread Paul in at least one instance by using an inadequate Latin translation of the Greek original.

In Romans 5, Paul addresses the matter of sin. In verse 12 he states, “Therefore . . . sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). Later in the chapter, Paul juxtaposes the sin of Adam with the righteousness of Christ: “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). In contrast to his contemporary theologians, Augustine drew from his reading of these scriptures that sin was passed biologically from Adam to all his descendants through the sexual act itself, thus equating sexual desire with sin. But why should he have reached this interpretation when marital sexual relations in Jewish society at the time of Christ and Paul were considered honorable and good?

Augustine’s outlook on sex was distorted by ideas from the world outside the Bible. Because so much philosophy was based on dualism, in which the physical was categorized as evil but the spiritual as good, some philosophers idealized the celibate state. Sexual relations were physical and therefore evil.

Augustine’s association with Neoplatonic philosophers led him to introduce their outlook within the church. This had its effect in the development of doctrine. For example, Jesus was considered immaculately conceived—without sin in that His Father was God. But because His mother, Mary, had a human father, she suffered the effect of original sin. In order to present Jesus Christ as a perfect offspring without any inherited sin from either parent, the church had to find a way to label Mary as sinless. They did this by devising the doctrine of her immaculate conception, though this inevitably leads to further questions.

Other babies were not so fortunate. Some eight centuries later the Catholic theologian Anselm extended the implications of Augustine’s concept of original sin and claimed that babies who died, did so as sinners; as sinners, they had no access to eternal life but were condemned to eternal damnation.

 

[Albion]

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Unless you're saying that NO works count and so there is NO number of them that will count, that response doesn't answer the questions that were asked, though, does it? In other words, the question is directed at getting those who DO believe in works righteousness to think through the implications of that belief.

It's always said by the members of certain churches that works are what saves (perhaps in conjunction with Faith), but there's no answer to the key questions of "what kind" and "how many." Yet, such questions should be asked by anyone who thinks that works righteousness is God's way to salvation.

 

[EmSw]

Unless you're saying that NO works count and so there is NO number of them that will count, that response doesn't answer the questions that were asked, though, does it? In other words, the question is directed at getting those who DO believe in works righteousness to think through the implications of that belief.

It's always said by the members of certain churches that works are what saves (perhaps in conjunction with Faith), but there's no answer to the key questions of "what kind" and "how many." Yet, such questions should be asked by anyone who thinks that works righteousness is God's way to salvation.

Since it is believed faith only saves, I guess I will ask -

What kind of faith and how much?

And I will ask, what gives life to faith?

Jesus said the following in John 5 -
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

So the question must be asked, how much good must a person do, to come forth to the resurrection of life?

Also, how much evil must a person do, to come forth to the resurrection of damnation?

 

[St_Worm2]

But the men of flesh in Acts 3:1 are good trees, yet they had not produced good fruit. That contradicts your view that good trees, spiritual men produce good fruit. It comports exactly with my view that these men were living according to the flesh and not putting to death the deeds of the body and were going to die.

Hi Wordkeeper, yes, St. Paul refers to the "men of flesh", spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3:1 as "brethren" and "infants in Christ", and as those who are able to receive the word of God (which contrasts sharply with his description of the "natural man" in 1 Corinthians 2:14). The men described in 1 Corinthians 3 were Christians, the "natural man", described in v2:14, is not.

1 Corinthians 3 does not teach us that the men here described, "had not produced good fruit", just that they were more 'immature' in the faith than St. Paul felt they should be. Remind me how we got started with this "fruit" analogy again .. The "good fruit"/"bad fruit" thing is from the Gospels, it's not used in Paul's Epistles (and, quite frankly, it introduces an analytical tool which is confusing here). I suppose it could work in chapter 2 where St. Paul contrasts Christians with non-Christians, but it doesn't work in chapter 3 because there he is talking to and about Christians ONLY. IOW, the contrast is between the "mature" and the "immature", but all are "in Christ".

You continue:

I showed you where the EO has stored a letter from Pelagius listing the doctrines attributed to him, which he denied ever teaching.

And I showed you 'what' the EO teach about his works and 'why' they teach that his writings are heretical. I'm not EO, I can only tell you what they told me, that their church holds Pelagius' writings and beliefs to be in opposition to the truth that they teach.

If you'd like to discuss this further, go talk to the EO here at CF and they will clear the problem up for you (but only if you are willing to listen and accept what they have to say about their own faith .. ).

But the church in Corinth WAS producing bad fruit, but they were good trees, according to your definition!

Again, this is not a proper analogy for 1 Corinthians 3. St. Paul was speaking to a Christians only group and his admonishment was a call to "maturity", IOW, for "believers" to grow in Christ, not to become something they 'already' were .. "BRETHREN"/"Infants IN CHRIST/able to receive the Word of God".

Yours and His,
David

 

[yesyoushould]

God does the works. It is a blessing we recognize the works. God loves His own with an everlasting love.

 

[richard373]

I believe I supplied an answer to the question “what kind of good works save” in my response to Albion where I said -

“Jesus, Paul and John (among others) affirm that it is agape (compassionate love) that determines whether one is of God (e.g. 1Jn4:7); it fulfils the law (Rom13:8,10; Gal5:7,14) and (perhaps surprisingly) is the one quality that separates the sheep from the goats (Mt25:31-45) – surprising that is until one recognises that love derives from faith which is what ultimately saves”.

The last point deals with the matter of “how much?” for Judge Jesus’s “sheep” demonstrated they had “agape” and utilised it – the question of how well or how often is not an issue in Mt25. “Works of righteousness” are clearly involved – there is no salvation without them, but that is because faith that justifies is never alone (Calvin got that right); faith operates through love (Gal5:6). As for Paul’s teaching on final salvation, it is summarised in Rom2:6-11:

"(God) will render to each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God”.

Paul’s background to his polemics against “works of the Law” was I believe misunderstood by Augustine and the Reformers who built on that fearsome Father's assertions of humanity’s innate hatefulness and God’s inscrutable justice. I may be RC (only just in view of how I have recently come to regard Augustine after an encounter with the Spirit) so I largely agree with Wordkeeper’s assessment of that man for he is no longer a saint in my eyes, rather a sustainer of mysteries. Fortunately his teaching was substantially undermined at Vatican II (regarding God’s broader providence and Judge Jesus’ perceived hatred for unbaptised infants); likewise more and more within Protestant scholarly circles have come to recognise that his utilisation of Romans and Galatians in his polemics with Pelagius were misplaced – the New Perspective on Paul movement rightly discern that Paul’s arguments were with Judaisers insisting on circumcision and Torah observance not “moralists” or “proto-Pelagians” desperately seeking to please God by their good works.

 

[Albion]

I believe I supplied an answer to the question “what kind of good works save” in my response to Albion where I said -

That has never been the question I asked--and I've asked many times. I asked, and others did too, "What works?," meaning "WHICH works?" I know that anyone can generalize and say something like "compassion and love" but it obviously matters which actions are in mind and which of them mean more than others, etc.

I do not think it's enough just to say "be nice" or words to that effect. Does helping an old lady across the street count with God as much as spending every Thursday of the year working at the soup kitchen or among the homeless? Does a kind word offered to a discouraged friend put aside more sins than a thousand dollar contribution to missions? The sins are ranked in the Catholic Church; it's fair to ask about the "Good works" that are supposed to earn us salvation, too.

 

[St_Worm2]

The sins are ranked in the Catholic Church

Wait, you just mean venial, mortal, and unpardonable, right? Or has someone in the Magisterium finally produced a 'list' that details which sins are "venial" and which sins are "mortal"?

The last time I asked, the closest I got was that things like "murder" and "rape" are examples of mortal sins, and that stealing a piece of gum out of someone else's pack is "venial". But there is a whole lot of room in between those two examples (plus I'm not completely satisfied that there are not some circumstances where killing a person is not a sin, but taking a piece of gym is).

So is there now an official list out there somewhere that you know of?

Thanks!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

Since it is believed faith only saves, I guess I will ask -

What kind of faith and how much?

Well, we know it has to be greater (or perhaps of a different kind) than the faith that "demons" have (James 2:19) who believe God exists and shudder as a result. It involves "trust" (we can talk more about that later if need be).

As to "how much", I'm not sure it's possible to discuss faith in those terms, you either have it or you don't where "saving faith" is concerned ..

And I will ask, what gives life to faith?

Do you mean by that "what is it about faith that 'causes' us to be saved", or did you mean something else?

Jesus said the following in John 5 -
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

So the question must be asked, how much good must a person do, to come forth to the resurrection of life?

Also, how much evil must a person do, to come forth to the resurrection of damnation?

The answers to both questions can be be found most quickly in John 3:18.

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
​

Those who are Christians are the ones who are 'able' to do good, IOW, they can do God's will. Those who do not know God are, of course, not able to do His will. See 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 about all of this.

Yours and His,
David

 

[Albion]

Wait, you just mean venial, mortal, and unpardonable, right? Or has someone in the Magisterium finally produced a 'list' that details which sins are "venial" and which sins are "mortal"?

Sorry. I did only mean what you wrote here, and "ranked" probably wasn't the best word for it.

The last time I asked, the closest I got was that things like "murder" and "rape" are examples of mortal sins, and that stealing a piece of gum out of someone else's pack is "venial". But there is a whole lot of room in between those two examples (plus I'm not completely satisfied that there are not some circumstances where killing a person is not a sin, but taking a piece of gym is).

I agree.

 

[richard373]

I do not think it's enough just to say "be nice" or words to that effect. Does helping an old lady across the street count with God as much as spending every Thursday of the year working at the soup kitchen or among the homeless? Does a kind word offered to a discouraged friend put aside more sins than a thousand dollar contribution to missions? The sins are ranked in the Catholic Church; it's fair to ask about the "Good works" that are supposed to earn us salvation, too.

What you or I think is not so important, it's what Jesus thinks that matters for all judgement has been devolved to Him, God the Father judges no one (Jn5:22). And, incidentally, He has promised that the standards to be applied will be perfectly intelligible and reasonable to us as human beings - the very standards we apply to others (Mt6:14; 7:2), not the standards of a Being of inscrutable justice "who to be true to His holy nature must banish from His presence all those who fail to meet His peerless standards of perfection" as I once believed, but the standards of a Man who Himself is perfect in compassion towards the whole human race and will have mercy on those who themselves have shown mercy. For He said "I was hungry and you fed me; I was a stranger and you made me welcome; I lacked clothes and you clothed me" etc etc, indicating that it is not one specific act of kindness that counts any more than another.
But the key point is we are saved by faith not by acquiring a standard of worked merit or perfectly fulfilling a law, in other word by a quality possessed and utilised not a quantity or standard achieved: we either have it or we don't. In terms of RC teaching, it is difficult to apply to those who are not RC; the particular penitent will be instructed what it is appropriate to do by the priest understood to be acting in the place of Christ; the need for such reparation was understood in the very early church - according to all available writings they (like me now) had no concept of Christ's own righteousness being transferred to the sinner trusting in Him - that was Luther's novelty. Where I would particularly disagree with St Worm (as well no doubt as on the last point) concerns the nature of saving faith. "Trust" does not of itself achieve any of the above; the criteria specified in Scripture in terms of final judgement always pertain to what we do and what we are, not what or in Whom we have been trusting; that dimension more pertains to acceptance in covenant, i.e. who within the new exclusive covenant are marked out in the present as a members of Christ's elect people -those who have been circumcised and observe Torah or those who believe Christ to be who He claimed to be and seek to follow Him?- it is the latter. That was the nature of Paul's polemic with the Judaisers but in terms of final judgement (Rom2:6-11) he applies the same principles as Jesus, James and the other apostles, for faith if it is not "formed" (i.e. no fruit derives from it) will not avail before God

 

[Albion]

But the key point is we are saved by faith not by acquiring a standard of worked merit or perfectly fulfilling a law, in other word by a quality possessed and utilised not a quantity or standard achieved: we either have it or we don't.

This is true. Therefore, the question(s) is asked in reference to the Catholic readers who hold to a belief in works righteousness. It's not that I myself believe that we can earn God's favor, and thus earn salvation, by performing a lifetime of good works. But since that is the Catholic view, the questions are asked of those people who should care to know "what it takes." As it turns out, they apparently do not know. All that ever comes back where these very basic--and obvious--questions are asked is something sweeping about acts of love, etc. Nothing specific, and certainly nothing about "How many."

 

[richard373]

This is true. "

Hi Albion, I am glad you agree with me but you may or may not be aware that what I have stated contradicts "Reformed" teaching - I am saying we are saved by a virtuous quality called faith/faithfulness (same word in Greek) rather than by the virtue of perfectly fulfilling a law or living a faultless life. Either way it is a virtue (or "work" if you like), it is not all of grace but it is dependant on God’s kindly favour (grace) in that He accepts us weak mortals on the basis of exercising a quality that has been freely provided to us. I used to believe (as a Calvinist) that my acceptance before God was dependant on my acknowledging my inability to please Him by any effort of my own, rather I must rely on Christ's righteousness (as it were) covering me, for no act of compassion I or anyone else might perform could ever please God - from which it would follow that all who are ignorant or misinformed about the gospel of Christ must face perdition. I’m not sure if anyone has yet made it clear in this thread but that is not post-Conciliar Catholic teaching. Likewise I am seeking to repudiate such miserable assertions by indicating that the consistent criteria of final judgement in scripture is works or life legacy, not having “rested in the merits of Christ” or the like. That’s why I keep referring to Augustine and the Reformer’s misinterpretation of Paul’s polemics with the Judaisers and of course to Mt 25 (one could add the respective fates of the compassionless rich man and Lazarus). God and His Christ are delighted when weak, sin-prone humans exercise compassion and accept all those who perform it, seeking to live a good life, showing themselves to be of God (1Jn4:7) and faithful to the light of Christ they have received (cf. Jn1:9). This sure ain't Reformed but is broadly in line with post-Vatican II Catholicism where frequent reference is made to “people of good will” and people “who die in God’s friendship” and the like. To this former Calvinist such language is far too wishy-washy – I require that such assertions be clearly underpinned from scripture, and I believe they can be (see my webpage).
As for those (Christians) chosen to be incorporated into Christ through elective grace, they continue to require grace (administered through the sacraments from a Catholic perspective) so as to be spiritually empowered to become conformed to the image of Christ, which requires their cooperation and self-discipline (what Paul refers to as putting to death the deeds of the body) which not all baptised or confessing Christians provide. Those who are faithful to this arduous way of the Cross will come to share Christ’s inheritance as His corporate eternal bride. Yes, they will have personally contributed and persevered but will recognise the blessings they are to receive were entirely dependent on the pardon, cleansing and empowerment resulting from the grace of Christ through His atonement. For someone pursuing the above, the question of "what kind" and "how many" good works do not really feature - they love Christ and simply wish to serve Him and enjoy His close communion forever.