In the main, then, are salvation and justification interchangeable for you? How does your infused righteousness fit into this, and when specifically? I don't understand how a baptized infant can be fully justified in the eyes of God, when there is no belief. I further do not understand how God can rule that "Fred" is justified in His eyes, only to have that ruling overturned by the, presumably, higher power of Fred, through later actions.
St. Paul never taught Sola Fide. It is not that we disagree with him or that we use other sources, -- one cannot get Sola Fide from St. Paul ALONE.
St. Paul wouldn't recognize himself after being run through the lens of the Church. :) He absolutely taught Sola Fide. Apparently, there are two separate Pauls.
For one thing, St. Paul did not disapprove of kings at all; read Romans 13.
HA! :) I don't know what your version says, but nowhere in the KJV or NIV is the word "king" mentioned in Romans 13. Words like "authority" and "ruler" are used. That is completely different. Paul is saying that, as a rule, we should submit to our human governments. That's great, I agree. Now, do you think God approved of the American Revolution against King George III? By your reading of Paul it appears we shouldn't even be a country. :)
My personal opinion is that it is incontrovertible that God orchestrated the victory of the Patriots. A civilized society needs a structured, and just, leadership. Kings are notoriously unjust as a rule, (there are of course notable exceptions) and so I don't think Paul was supporting that idea at all.
On your larger point, the Scripture is indeed given to all faithful, as long as they read it faithfully. In order to understand it, note that Christ sent specific people as himself and told them to teach others. That is this Church.
I disagree that Christ sent anyone "as Himself". There is only one "Himself". And when you say "this Church" I presume you mean the RCC. I would say that Christ sent the Apostles to more fully establish God's Church, of which the RCC is a part. ...... When you say that scripture is given to everyone as long as they read it faithfully, of course that is code. It doesn't mean that people are free to absorb the text of the scripture for themselves, within their personal relationships with Christ, it means that they are only free to absorb the Traditions of the Church. Those are two different things.
FK: "Christ's Gospel is readily understandable and believable to the elect at the proper time."
So much for your populism expressed earlier. Specific warnings I had in mind is the warning at the end of 2 Peter about the difficulty in understanding the Pauline epistles, and another, also in Peter, against private interpretations.
Perhaps I have failed in making a certain distinction. On the one hand, I am saying that the core concepts of Christianity are understandable (perspicuous) to the average disinterested reader. Disinterested readers certainly include the lost or reprobate. On the other hand, I am saying that the scriptures WILL be perspicuous AND BELIEVABLE to the elect at the appointed time. Plenty of people can quote scriptures who are not right with the Lord.
This is actually a fascinating twist on our "understanding vs. faith" discussion concerning Mary. :) I suppose the resolution is that in this post, when we talk about perspicuity, I mean it on a rational level, i.e. "the text appears to be saying 'X'". No faith is necessary. But in the Mary discussion, "understanding", as I have used it, is only on the spiritual level.
Oh, I thought you believed that a person was saved and elect outside of anything he could do. Are you now suggesting that one must have a certain amount of self-generated faith to become saved???
I further do not understand how God can rule that "Fred" is justified in His eyes, only to have that ruling overturned by the, presumably, higher power of Fred, through later actions.
Being justified depends on our relationship with God. Are we in a relationship with Him or not? This is not about some irrevocable bus ticket good in 30 years... It is about a loving relationship, or lack of it, over the course of our lives.
St. Paul wouldn't recognize himself after being run through the lens of the Church. :) He absolutely taught Sola Fide. Apparently, there are two separate Pauls.
Although that is humorous, you have hardly proven that Paul teaches sola fide. This would suggest that James and Paul taught opposite things, as James does NOT teach sola fide. Of course, that explains why Luther wanted James removed... The earliest Christians certainly didn't believe that. I guess all of those Christians must not have been paying attention to the only person teaching sola fide, in your opinion.
On the one hand, I am saying that the core concepts of Christianity are understandable (perspicuous) to the average disinterested reader.
You have not proven that, either. This thread is proof that the "core" concepts are not in agreement. Other forums that I go to are even more separated on issues such as the trinity. While there are a number of Protestants who share Catholic beliefs like the trinity, many do not see it in Scriptures. While you may feel that a person can take the book and read it for himself and determine what it should mean, that has not been the way of Christianity found in the Bible.
Look. Christ left a body of men and gave them authoritative powers - not a book that people would refer to and judge for themselves what Christians are to believe. That should give you cause to re-analyze your stand. If not, what can I say? Look at what Christ left His Apostles. Figure it out. Decide for yourself if you are continuing in that manner.
Regards
Very much so. They express the same reality of conquering sin and gaining eternal life for the individual.
How does your infused righteousness fit into this, and when specifically? I don't understand how a baptized infant can be fully justified in the eyes of God, when there is no belief. I further do not understand how God can rule that "Fred" is justified in His eyes, only to have that ruling overturned by the, presumably, higher power of Fred, through later actions.
The infant has no personal sin. Baptism through the infusion of grace removes the sin of Adam from him. At this point his consciousness does not play at all. Once Fred grows up, being a free agent, he may sin, and should he be fortunate enought to ask, the Church will give him grace to overcome it, till, as he is sanctified, he does not sin any longer. This process is best described in the opening verses of 2 Peter 1, often quoted lately.
[St Paul] absolutely taught Sola Fide
No. We both saw your proof texts. He taught that works for temporal gain do not save, and then in every letter he urged us to do works out of love. Hence, some works do not save, and some works do, under grace. "With fear and trembling work out your salvation for it is God working in you".
nowhere in the KJV or NIV is the word "king" mentioned in Romans 13
Correct; in other words, the explanation there is generic and applies to all rulers, monarchic or otherwise, and all authority that defies the Commandments is likewise condemned.
I disagree that Christ sent anyone "as Himself".
Your disagreement is with scripture then: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). Plain text.
it means that they are only free to absorb the Traditions of the Church
Yes, precisely. Of course, the freedom is considerable. For example, Catholics are free to make up their own mind about whether to believe theistic evolution or direct creation of the world as literally described; free to make up their own mind regarding the present status of the covenant with Israel, or regarding the eschatological prophecies, and a lot of other things.
This is actually a fascinating twist on our "understanding vs. faith" discussion concerning Mary. :) I suppose the resolution is that in this post, when we talk about perspicuity, I mean it on a rational level, i.e. "the text appears to be saying 'X'". No faith is necessary. But in the Mary discussion, "understanding", as I have used it, is only on the spiritual level.
I certainly agree that some parts of Catholicism, especially Mariology is not the only reading of the same scripture, and the Catholic reading is heavily spiritualized, if that is the right word.