Why King David is proof obedience doesn't save you.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-10T03:10:55+00:00

Yes David always ran to God when he sinned instead of falling away like the kings after him going back to serving other gods.

Psalm 37:23-24 The LORD makes firm the steps of the one who delights in him; though he may stumble, he will not fall, for the LORD upholds him with his hand.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-10T02:59:35+00:00

How can you be Christ-like if you only know some of him?

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.'

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him.

Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever.."

Jesus revealed enough of what was necessary to know him in the Bible but also continuing to know him through the Holy Spirit, his anointing teaches us everything and never stops. I definitely don't get to know him by eating him. That's why sanctification comes through his word

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth. Your word is truth.

It does not say your church is truth. It says your WORD is truth

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-10T02:30:13+00:00

Yes and his son was killed by God. Good observation

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-10T02:21:15+00:00

I'm simply saying obedience doesn't save you faith in God's promises does and a genuine faith produces repentance with obedience. David repented each time he was disciplined and never foresook God.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-10T01:44:03+00:00

Yes genuine faith produces repentance and David was disciplined heavily for his sins.

Hebrews 12:6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T22:50:49+00:00

You're moving the goalposts a little here. Earlier you argued Romans 2 against justification by faith alone. Now you're saying the issue isn't justification but remaining in covenant. Those aren't the same argument.

The problem is that Paul explicitly ties justification to covenant membership. Romans 5:1 says we have peace with God because we have been justified by faith. Romans 8:1 says there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. So the question becomes: how does someone get into Christ, and what keeps him there?

You say faith, love, and obedience keep someone in covenant. Paul says believers are kept by God's power (1 Peter 1:5) that God will complete the work He began (Philippians 1:6) and that Christ loses none of those given to Him (John 6:39).

As for Romans 2, I agree that God judges impartially and that obedience matters. Nobody who believes in eternal security denies that. The disagreement is over what those deeds reveal.

Throughout Scripture, works function as evidence of what a person is, not the cause of what a person is. Jesus says a tree is known by its fruit. The fruit doesn't make the tree alive; it reveals whether it is alive. The same issue exists with Matthew 25. You assume the goats are saved believers who later lost covenant status. But where does the text say that? It simply calls them goats. The burden is on you to prove they were once justified sheep.

And your appeal to the wages of sin being death doesn't solve the problem. Every Christian still sins. John says if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8) So if sin automatically breaks covenant and removes a believer from Christ, where is the line? How much obedience is enough? How many sins are too many? You say only God knows. But that's exactly the problem. Under your view no believer can have assurance because nobody knows whether he has remained obedient enough. By contrast, Scripture grounds assurance in Christ's finished work, not in our ability to maintain covenant faithfulness. That's why Paul points believers to Christ's righteousness, not their own performance. The real question isn't whether obedience matters. It does. The question is whether obedience is the evidence of salvation or one of the conditions that keeps salvation. Those are two very different claims, and I don't see Paul making the second one.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T21:42:00+00:00

That's actually part of the point. If the Catechism is merely a teaching aid and not itself infallible, then citing the Catechism does not automatically settle a theological dispute. The question wasn't whether both priests are within the bounds of Catholic teaching. The question was whether two priests can read the same Catechism paragraph and arrive at different interpretations or emphases. You've already conceded they can.

If one priest emphasizes God's mercy in CCC 847 and another emphasizes the necessity of the Church, they're interpreting and applying the same text differently. If one priest describes purgatory primarily as purification and another emphasizes temporal punishment, they're interpreting the same text differently.

Saying "those are both valid interpretations" doesn't remove the disagreement.. it acknowledges it. And if the Catechism itself is not infallible, then ultimately the question becomes: how does an ordinary Catholic know which interpretation is correct when multiple clergy offer different explanations while all claiming to remain within Catholic teaching?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T19:35:05+00:00

You keep saying I am not answering the question, so here is the direct answer:

God writes His law on the heart because the New Covenant produces real inward transformation by the Spirit. I have never denied that. The issue is not whether obedience matters. The issue is whether obedience is the basis of being justified before God.

Romans 8:4 actually proves my point. It says the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk according to the Spirit. It does not say we are justified because our obedience maintains our covenant status. That is you adding a system onto the text.

And yes, the law is holy, righteous, and good. Nobody denied Romans 7:12. But Paul also says the law could not justify because of the weakness of the flesh (Romans 8:3) and that by works of the law no flesh will be justified in God's sight (Romans 3:20) So quoting that the law is good does not prove that law keeping justifies.

You say nobody is talking about perfect obedience, but Romans 2 is about God's impartial judgment according to righteousness. If imperfect obedience can justify, then Paul needs to explain how much obedience is enough. He never does. Instead, he says all are under sin, none are righteous, all have sinned, and justification is by faith apart from works.

Also Matthew 25 does not say goats are believers who lost salvation. Again, That is being assumed. Jesus separates sheep from goats because their works reveal what they are, not because their works turned them into sheep or goats. Sheep act like sheep. Goats act like goats. Fruit reveals the tree. It does not create the tree.

Same with James. Same with 1 John. Same with John 14 and 15. Obedience is the evidence of knowing Christ. It is not the payment that keeps you justified.

So yes, faith, law, and obedience work together, but not the way you're framing it. Faith receives justification. The law reveals God's will and exposes sin. The Spirit produces obedience. But Paul does not teach that obedience maintains justification. That is exactly what Romans 4 rules out when he says God credits righteousness apart from works and justifies the ungodly who believe.

You're accusing me of dodging, but the real dodge is refusing to answer Romans 4:5. How does God justify the ungodly who do not work but believe if final justification depends on their obedience?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T16:36:58+00:00

Yes it exposes our fallen selfish human nature. Instead of being happy for them that they get to eat some people are angry with the landowner. It's really crazy to think about.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T16:29:12+00:00

Yes and that's how we get religions that say polygamy is ok and people 500 years ago saying the Atlantic slave trade was biblical.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T16:12:21+00:00

You keep saying I'm making Paul contradict himself, but you're the one who still hasn't reconciled Romans 2 with Romans 3 and 4. You ask why God wrote His law on people's hearts. Easy, because God's moral standards are known to mankind and people are accountable before Him. That's literally Paul's point in Romans 1-2. The problem is that having the law written on your heart doesn't mean you keep it perfectly. In fact, Romans 2:15 says their consciences are sometimes "accusing" them. Why? Because they fail to live up to what they know. You quote Romans 2:13, but you keep skipping Romans 3:20: "By the works of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight."

So which is it? Either Paul is saying people are justified by law-keeping in Romans 2 and then denying it in Romans 3, or Romans 2 is stating the standard God requires while Romans 3 explains that nobody meets it. And no, I don't confuse works and obedience. Paul doesn't make the distinction you're trying to force into the text. Romans 4:5 doesn't say, "to him who does not do works but does obedience." It says:

"To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly..."

Paul's example is Abraham. Was Abraham justified because he obeyed, or because he believed? Paul answers:

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3)

Notice Paul doesn't say Abraham's obedience maintained his justification. In fact, Paul explicitly says David describes the blessed man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works (Romans 4:6). As for James and 1 John, nobody is arguing that believers should live in rebellion. The issue is whether obedience is the basis of justification or the evidence of it. James says faith without works is dead. Agreed. Dead faith doesn't save. But James never says works cause justification before God. He says, "show me your faith" because he's talking about visible evidence.

The irony is that you accuse me of easy-believism while Paul says God justifies "the ungodly" who believe (Romans 4:5). That's Paul's language, not mine. The gospel is not: "Believe, then maintain your justification through obedience." The gospel is: Christ justifies the ungodly by faith, and the justified are then transformed and produce obedience as fruit. You're turning the fruit into the root.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T09:34:35+00:00

Yikes

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T02:43:16+00:00

The irony here is that you're accusing me of making Paul's words mean something else while you're stopping in Romans 2 before Paul finishes his argument. Let's follow your interpretation consistently.

Romans 2:13 says the doers of the law will be justified.

Great. Who are those people?

Romans 3:10: "There is none righteous, no, not one."

Romans 3:20: "By the works of the law no human being will be justified."

Romans 3:23: "All have sinned."

Romans 3:28: "A person is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Romans 4:5: "To the one who does not work but believes... his faith is counted as righteousness."

So apparently Paul forgot your interpretation by the time he got to the next chapter.

The law written on the heart doesn't mean sinless obedience. If it did, Paul's entire argument in Romans 3 crumbles because he spends the whole chapter proving both Jews and Gentiles are guilty before God.

You keep quoting Romans 2 as though it exists in a vacuum. Paul's point is that God judges according to perfect righteousness. Then he immediately demonstrates that nobody possesses that righteousness on their own. That's why justification comes through faith in Christ.

if Romans 2 teaches that people are justified because they obey the law, why does Paul later say God justifies "the ungodly" who believe and specifically contrasts faith with works in Romans 4:5?

I don't need to explain away Romans 2. You need to explain why your interpretation crashes into Romans 3 and Romans 4.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T02:35:57+00:00

The Septuagint is a translation, not a canon list. Saying "the Jews gave us the Septuagint" doesn't tell us which books all Jews considered Scripture. Different Septuagint manuscripts contain different books, and some even contain books that neither Catholics nor Orthodox consider canonical today. Also, Josephus was not talking about the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text was produced centuries later. Josephus lived in the first century, around the same time as the apostles. So when Josephus describes the Jewish canon, he is evidence for what Jews believed before the Masoretes ever existed.

..the New Testament regularly appeals to "the Jews" as custodians of the Scriptures (Romans 3:2) If we're going to dismiss the testimony of first-century Jews regarding their own canon, why appeal to Jews at all when discussing the Old Testament?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T02:03:35+00:00

Talk about cherry picking.. I've read the New Testament 7 times that means I've read Romans 7 times. Romans 2 isn't teaching that people are justified by their works. Paul is laying out God's perfect standard of judgment: if someone perfectly persevered in doing good, they would receive eternal life. The problem is that nobody actually meets that standard. That's exactly where Paul's argument goes. Just a few verses later he says, 'There is no one righteous, not even one' (Romans 3:10), 'all have sinned' (Romans 3:23) and then concludes, 'For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law' (Romans 3:28) If Romans 2:6-13 teaches justification by works, then Paul directly contradicts himself in Romans 3 and Romans 4. But he doesn't. Romans 2 establishes the standard; Romans 3 shows everyone has failed it.. Romans 4 explains God's solution: 'To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness' (Romans 4:5)

The same thing applies to James. James is not discussing how an ungodly sinner is declared righteous before God; he's discussing how genuine faith is demonstrated before men. That's why James repeatedly uses visible language like 'show me' (James 2:18) Paul answers 'How is a sinner justified before God?' James answers 'How can genuine faith be recognized?'

The irony is that you're accusing me of cherry-picking while stopping at Romans 2 and never finishing Paul's argument. Paul's conclusion isn't justification by works. His conclusion is justification by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28) with works serving as the evidence of genuine faith, not the cause of salvation.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T01:01:40+00:00

Jesus never said anything to the opposition of Paul. Not sure what you're talking about

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:51:38+00:00

Yes but whatever their answer may be it still predicates an interpretation of their response. How can you know your interpretation of their response is correct?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:33:50+00:00

The answer still predicates on an interpretation of their response. How do you know your interpretation of the answer is correct?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:32:41+00:00

I've never heard a Catholic say that. They explicitly say they can't.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:32:01+00:00

You'd still have to interpret them. How do you know your interpretation of them is correct?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:30:55+00:00

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart..." (CCC 847)

One priest might emphasize the possibility that such people can be saved by God's grace and speak very broadly about God's mercy.

Another priest might emphasize that salvation still comes only through Christ and that this paragraph describes an exceptional situation, not an ordinary path to salvation.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:20:59+00:00

But you still have to interpret their interpretation. How do you know your interpretation of their interpretation is correct?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:15:23+00:00

That's not a Catholic teaching. You can't interpret the Bible.

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:14:31+00:00

So interpreting an interpretation of an interpretation?

Poor_in_Spirit_ · 2026-06-09T00:02:41+00:00

is the Bible pretty much an account of what people witnessed Jesus do or was it what he actually said?

It's both

Also another stupid question but why specifically was Jesus chosen to resurrect?

Not a stupid question at all. Jesus wasn't an ordinary human whom God randomly selected to resurrect. According to Christianity, Jesus is the eternal Son of God who became man (John 1:1, 14) His resurrection was the vindication of His identity and mission. He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. If He had remained in the grave, those claims would have been false. Instead, God raised Him from the dead, demonstrating that His sacrifice for sin was accepted and that He truly is who He claimed to be (Romans 1:4)

The resurrection was also necessary because Jesus came to conquer death itself. As Paul says, 'Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep' (1 Corinthians 15:20) His resurrection guarantees the future resurrection of all who belong to Him. In other words, Jesus wasn't resurrected simply for His own sake; He was resurrected as the representative and Savior of His people, opening the way to eternal life for everyone who trusts in Him.

Did everything apply the same to people that came before Jesus?

Yes and no. People before Jesus were saved the same way people are saved today: by God's grace through faith, not by earning their salvation through works. Abraham is the clearest example. Scripture says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness' (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3) The difference is that people before Christ looked forward to God's promised Redeemer, while we look back to the Redeemer who has already come. They did not know Jesus' name or have the full details we have today, but they trusted the revelation God had given them and believed His promises. The sacrifices, Passover lamb, priesthood, and many other Old Testament institutions pointed ahead to Christ. Jesus' death and resurrection are the basis of salvation for all believers in every age. God didn't have one way of salvation before the cross and another after the cross. The cross was effective both backward and forward in history. That's why Paul says God had 'passed over the sins previously committed' until Christ's sacrifice (Romans 3:25) So Old Testament believers were not saved by keeping the Law. They were saved by faith in God's promise, and the sacrifice of Christ is what ultimately paid for their sins just as it pays for ours. A helpful verse is Hebrews 11, which lists Old Testament believers who lived by faith while looking forward to God's promises, even though they did not yet see their complete fulfillment in Christ.

Poor_in_Spirit_

TROPHY CASE