In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

Do you disagree that al have sinned, and that the whole human race of accountable souls “are all under sin,” “all gone out of the way,” and so “all the world may become guilty before God,” as stated in Rm. 3:9-19) and that “in me [and you] (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing,” and are damnable and destitute of any way of escaping our just punishment in Hell fire or deserving eternal life, but must by saved by the mercy of God in Christ, by His blood and righteousness?

Yes. That mercy can come sooner for some according to Christ's grace, such as His mother, but as human material in general, yes, I agree. That is Catholic teaching.

If only all her teaching was so, but the Immaculate Conception was the product of long term theological evolution, not something taught in Scripture, and the logic used in attempting validate thereby does not. Nor is this a result of unanimous consent of the fathers. Scripture evidences that it makes notable conditions evident, and a normal human being who knows “how to refuse the evil and choose the good” remaining sinless is most notable, and thus Jesus is thrice stated to be without sin, (Jn. 8:46; 2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22) even though this need not be said due to His being Divine. How much more are such statements needed in the case of created mortals. But this is never said of Mary, but

RCs reason that God had to have a sinless vessel to bring His sinless incarnated Word into the world. And that being “full of grace” she could not have sin.

However, this presupposes that she was preserved “in the first instance of her conception...from all stain of original sin” ((Ineffabilis Deus) which is contrary to what is stated on the subject, (Ps. 51:5; Rm. 5:12) while there is no necessity for such, for not only was Mary's own mother not so preserved, and Jesus body was prepared by God, (Heb. 10:5) but God brought forth His sinless pure spoken and written Word into the world using holy but fallen men who had sinned.

As for “full of grace,” the only person who is said to be “full” (plērēs) grace (charis) is the Lord Jesus Himself, (Jn. 1:14). Lk.1:28 simply says “hail” “grace” or graced, thus can be rendered “Hail, favoured” while if “full” is added it can easily refer to the contents of her womb, and or to her having been chosen, rather than a sinless quality of Mary. Believers themselves are said to be graced or favoured (charis) in Eph. 1:6, and can be “filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Eph. 5:18)

man is fallen[...] because they yield to their inherited Adamic nature

I wouls be careful with the word "nature" though. A Catholic would say "condition" or "state". Christ has human as well as divine nature, and His nature is not fallen. The human nature is not fallen, man has fallen away from his nature, which is as perfect as God made it.

It can have different meanings, depending on context, but this i know, that believers “were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” (Eph. 2:3)

Annalex: You are saved again thanks to a confession no matter how perfunctory. That is because, no matter where you put "works" in the plan of salvation, the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Confession, Eucharist are not our works. It is God Who works, "according to his own purpose and grace".

Daniel: The idea that a mere perfunctory confession saves is more heretical than supposing infants are born again by proxy faith.

So in your mind it is a human effort that forgive sins. So who has works salvation now? The Church is empowered to forgive sins (John 20:23). There are many ways to invalidate confession, lack of contrition is primary one. But a confession done properly -- that is, the sins are told as they are remembered and contrition is expressed sincerely -- is valid if the priest absolves the sin. The Church supplies what was lacking in the penitent, if anything.

Your assume that mere perfunctory confession was not what such as “lack of heart contrition” referred to, and or that “saves” does not refer to the faith behind it. Such contrition God's grace works in one that is to be justified by faith, and which prep work is not contrary to sola fide, as much explained already. But the church cannot make a conversion of confession valid if one does not believe with all his heart. (Acts 8:37)

The infants are cleansed by baptism for a similar reason, because it is God Who provides the "laver of regeneration". The faith of the sponsor is necessary but it is not the faith that cleanses, it is the Sacrament itself, ex opere operando.

Which is contrary to the explicit requirements for conversion and baptism. (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:37) God does have regard to faith in showing grace to others, but the infirmity of the palsied man was only physical, not cognitive, and was able to himself believe and obey. God also forgave souls in Lk. 23:34, but did not equate to redemption. And i do not agree that infants are guilty of sins but that they are innocent.

As for ex opere operando, the recipient must be properly disposed, and normally the minister is to be of God and appropriately gifted.

And since the OTC which you would have us convert to include them, then it is not simply official RC faith that is the issue, but the church itself

I don't know what OTC is (I know you probably explaiend it somewhere but it doesn't come to mind). The statement though is wrong insofar as you mean "because the Catholic Church has political liberals in it I don't want it no matter hat faith you have". It is wrong in the same sense as saying "because there are political liberals in that hospital I will treat my wounds at home". you just don't know what church is.

One True Church. The point is valid in relation to the promoting of Rome by Rome and her (RCAs) Roman Catholic apologists who attack Prots as deficient in grace. What a person or entity really believes is shown by what they practice, and what they teach is shown by what they effectually convey.

TD[Total Depravity of man] is no more unreasonable than original sin, which is where it comes from

I agree that some aspects of total depravity doctrine are bridgeable with Catholic teaching on original sin and therefore bridgeable with the Scripture. Others are not. That it originated, such as it is, from "souls honestly seeking to be consistent with Scripture" is neither here or there. Perhaps Calvin honestly sought something, perhaps not. The end product is bunk. For a thorough treatment of the TULIP doctrines and in what part they are Catholic (in some ways all five are) see A Tiptoe Through TULIP

I do not subscribe to all as defined.

(do) you seem to have a real aversion to yourself being a sinner who is worthy of Hell and unable to save yourself except by the mercy of God in Christ, by His blood and righteous, not matter how it is appropriated?

No, I do not have such an aversion. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. So those outside of it by the time they die according to their heart will not be able to save themselves, and those in it by the time they die according to their heart will be saved by the blood and righteousness of Christ, and again not because of anything in them as creature.

So this means formal membership, and or at least with the required trust in her assuredly infallible magisterium? And are those Catholics who suppose they are somewhat morally worthy of eternal life, lost? Do you support a Roman monarchy? And what should be done with doctrinal heretics? Answer.

its not really about evangelical not working out their faith, but about not working out Rome's.

It is about theological error of Sola Fide. We "in Rome" have no problem with Evangelicals' good works as such and on some of these works, -- e.g. pro-life causes and the role of religion in public square -- we can cooperate.

Faith without works is dead. Rome largely is, and I have been there in both conditions, and what committed souls she has are mostly preaching a particular brand name institution which their life centers around more than Christ and a relationship that transcends its living organic manifestations. About the only souls one can have some degree of actual fellowship in Christ with are a few charismatics. And the movement, inspired in the last century of Protestants (though it had prior sanction by Rome), has been largely reeled in.

Paul and the early church had nothing to do with disciplining those without

So did the Inquisition, at least as conceived. It is an internal ecclesial court whose top penalty is excommunication of errant Catholics from the Cathoic Church.

You left out the other part, while actions show what was believed. The heretical Cathars and Waldensians in the Medieval Inquisition certainly felt outside, but the point is, whether in or out, the New Testament church did not use such carnal force to discipline its members or those without, nor was it constitute to do so, including using theocracies to punish men merely for matters of belief. While the Inquisitorial victims have been exaggerated, it was a long term practice as Rome became much like the world in organization and means. Calvin learned it also.

Rome in contrast, persecuted Bible Christians

But you are not "Bible Christians". You have some beliefs that are Catholic and then you have some beliefs that you need kilobytes of verbosity to paper over the chasm between Protestantism and the scripture.

Rather, Rome has some Biblical beliefs which we affirm and have diligently defended against those who deny them, which deviation is due to allegiance to authorities higher than Scripture, but thus we must contend against Rome's inventions which are due to the same mutiny. As for verbosity, it is mostly Roman Catholics who constantly seem to feel they need to advertise their church on FR and elsewhere, while my lengthy responses are much due to their refusal to be objective and their need to defend Rome at every point. If eating meat on Fridays was still forbidden they would still be seeking to defend it, as they do the unScriptural church law mandating a celibate clergy. They do not support seeking truth as Bereans, but must defend an institution as the infallible authority above the Scriptures.

1 Cor 3:8-15 [...] is specifically about the works being burned up and one losing rewards [...] Purgatory on that other hand, is about the interior self being purged

The passage in 1 Cor 3:8-15 equates the man to the building and then the inferior stuff is purged by fire from that building. So yes, the allegory of the building refers to the purification of man interiorally.

It is you are are engaging in forced entry. It says nothing about the building being believers whose interior is purged by fire! It is about the manner of material used to build te church, and the gold are those whose faith endures, (1Pt. 1:17) while the wood” are the lost who have not true faith. (Mal. 4:1; Mt. 3:12) Rome's own stamped NAB commentators state, “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” You are wresting texts to defend Rome, to your own hurt.

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.. "..the fire shall try every man's work [labor] of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

"For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1 Thessalonians 2:19)

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” (v. 17) This speaks corporately, and those like Ananias and wife who defiled the church are to be burned.

To prove your conclusion, please show where taking part in the Lord's supper was preached as the means to get life in you.

Why, in John 6 in several places Chirst says that "eating His flesh" gives eternal life, and that He will give us His flesh to eat. Then, at the Last Supper He did. Then, at Golgotha, He gave His life in order to give us eternal life. What is not clear about that?

Why is it not clear that (as shown before) “eating” has a high metaphorical use, while John calls Jesus many things thusly (Lamb, door, shepherd, etc.) and contrasts the physical with the spiritual, and all through John and onward believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ made one alive and gave salvation/eternal life. (Jn. 3:15; 10:28; Rm. 6:23) More on Jun. 6 here.

And as Jesus “lived by the Father” by doing His will, which was His “meat and drink.” (Jn. 4:34) so believers are to “live by” God's word, (Mt. 44:4) doing his will. And nowhere is one made alive by taking part in the Lord's supper nor is any connection made with receiving salvation by so doing, the Holy Spirit only mentioning it in one other book, and in which communal Christ-like love for the corporate body of Christ is the issue. Nor is it mentioned when John provides the characteristics of true believers so they may know they have eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) while purity and love for the corporate body of Christ is.

The very idea that physical food feeds one spiritually is antithetical to the gospel of John in particular

Well, the Eucharist is not simply physical food: "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing". But the spirit is fed in the Eucharist, as the gospel says: "my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him".

Well, the way go get life in you, so that the Spirit can abide, is by believing the gospel. (Acts 10:43:-46; 15:8,9; Eph. 1:13) Supplementing what i just said, physical food feeding the spirit is contrary to what Scripture reveals, which is that hearing the word of God does so, as by faith comes, (Rm. 10:17) and by believing it souls are born again, (Jn. 1:18) as it is “the Spirit that giveth life.” John also says that Jesus words are to abide in Christians, (John 15:7) “and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit [not a wafer made flesh] which he hath given us.” (1Jn. 3:24)

Rather than allowing 6:63 to interpret what Jesus meant, which conforms to what John says elsewhere, you must try to wrangle eating literal food out of “the flesh profited nothing.” In short, v. 63 is “not a reference to a eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6,” contrasting one with the other, with the Spirit resulting from believing the gospel.

“confessional” in Rm. 10:9 specifically refers to mouth and promises salvation, but confess cannot be restricted to mouth and includes living it out.

Yes. That is when it starts, with internalized faith. That is what I said.

And as sinful thoughts in the heart can defile a man, (Mk. 7:21-23) so hearts are purified by faith, and Abraham believed God and his counted was counted for righteousness, which God does to “him that worketh not but believeth,” with a faith that is active by nature. And the preparatory work in one heart which precedes justification by sola fide is also by the grace of God.

the Bible plainly promises salvation to those who believe, without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering. (Acts 2:38; 10:42ff; 16:14-15)

Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

The disagreement here is what this requires. There is no “do” as in doing works of repentance prior to baptism that day, nor does the context indicate that they did such, but repented of unbelief and the heart behind that hour and “same day,” and were baptised in faith, which would results in doing works which correspond to repentance, (Acts 26:20) which again, distinguishes the internal change from its external consequence. This is no mere intellectual exercise, again, any more than sins of the heart are. If “penance” means coming to God out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, signifying repentance, and which God promises to look to and save, (Psa. 34:18; Is. 66:2) — which is a work of grace, and out of which actions will result — then it is a Scriptural need, and Sola fide presumes faith comes out of such a heart. But if you require that evident formal or prescribed acts of contrition must always be exercised before forgiveness, though such may be seen, then you are fostering legalism and denying “contritio caritate perfecta” and baptism by desire. Souls must obey some light before they can be saved, but even choosing to hear a gospel message can be evidence of such, and God knows the heart.

"without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering" is your arbitrary qualification on what "do penance" must in your opinion, mean.

It is you who provided examples, such as the criminal on the cross.

[42] And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. [43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. [44] While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. [45] And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. (Acts 10)

I don't see anything about salvation predicated or not predicated on penance in this passage, other than "judging" ordinarily implies some form of temporal punishment.

It was predicated upon having the aforementioned heart, and which at least Cornelius evidenced, consistent with the preparatory work sola fide recognizes, yet that did not justify him, but Peter said God purified their hearts by faith, (Acts 15:9) being born again before baptism.

[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, did hear: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul. [15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (Acts 16)

Yes, but baptism of an adult mandates penance (Acts 2:38).

As defined above.

the problem is your interpretation places James in direct contradiction to Moses and Paul

No it doesn't because St. Paul never taught "justification [...] to be procured by faith not merit". He taught that is if offered for no merit of ours, -- that is, offered in grace -- but he never taught that it is apprehended by faith alone (Eph 2:5-10).

See prior recent comments, regarding making “not by works of righteous” or “without works” or works apart from the law, or by the law and “to him that worketh not but beleiveth” to mean the unGodly did works of love which first justified them.

despite your incongruous attempt to set declarative righteousness in opposition to being regenerated, there is no conflict between them

Well, so long that you understand that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense, I will not argue over words. There is a brand of Protestantism that reads "imputed" as in opposition to transformative justification; that one is in error.

Sola fide holds that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense, and is concomitant with justification but that justification is not based upon ones interior holiness, but a faith that is counted for righteousness, as Scripture clearly states. (Rm. 4:3,6) But which again, results in practical outworking enabled by regeneration. The main thing to me is that it happens, and that morally destitute man rests in the Lord Christ as His Savior, and thus responds to Him as Lord.

Rome's literalizing the allegorical in the Lord's supper is manifestly self-refuting.

I don't know how you can call anything that requires kilobytes of inane commentary "refuting". I would think that reading the actual gospel which says things like "flesh indeed" and "this is my body" is self-evident.

What is self evident is that it is not comprehensive analysis but such superficial rendering which ignores obvious allegory that is inane: “Showing a lack of intelligence or thought; stupid and silly.” That kosher disciples would unquestioningly eat flesh and drink blood, understanding what it was, while Peter was aghast that Jesus would even wash his feet, and protested violating kosher law, while the abundant allegorical use of eating easily conforms this and Jn. 6 to Scripture. Otherwise one might as well conclude that the Israelite were cannibals, (Num. 14:9) and that Jeremiah ate scrolls, (Jer. 15:16) or that Jesus did likewise, (Jn. 6:57; cf. Mt. 4:4) and that David experienced transubstantiation. (1Chron. 11:17-19) And which explains the allegorical use in the New Testament. But as if have already shown this extensively, and you are not allowed to see anything different from what Rome teaches, then extended discourse can merely be tactic to take up my time.

as for weekly service with a priest with his back turned to the people, that is not in any description of the New Testament church.

That is consistent with the Mass being a sacrifice to God (not a repeated sacrifice but a sacrifice), where the priest leads the congregation rather than opposes it. It also excludes the false understanding of priesthood as ministry to men. But I agree that there is no fixed position of the priest that would be apparent in the scripture, and in fact, like it or not, most Masses nowadays are served ad populum.

Again, apart from apostles, elders/bishops were the pastors of the church, being one office not two, (Titus 1:5-7) and were not a separate class of sacerdotal priests. All believers engage in sacrifice, (Rm. and there is nothing in all the instructions given to pastors that teaches they are to instrumentally transubstantiate bread and wine into Jesus corporeal flesh, but are to be and work to make the church an manifestation of Christ by their character and works.

The full phrase is justification by grace alone through faith alone, and again, it is not of a character that is alone, but alone as the procurative means of appropriating IR, though it may be concomitant with an outward expression.

I am sorry, I did not commit to memory your system of acronyms and really would not want to go back and find the decoder that you once provided. What is IR? If you were to say that good works MUST be concomitant with faith, you are saying what the Catholic Church teaches, namely that works are necessary for salvation. How you say it, that works merely may accompany faith, you are off the biblical grounds of Eph. 2:5-10, Romans 2:7-10, Matthew 25:31-46.

IR=Imputed Righteousness. By a kind of faith which , if able, produces works corresponding to the will of its Object.

Rome comes close to the sola fide position in holding souls as being initially justified apart from any merit, or in baptism by desire, and affirms “God's unconditional justifying grace” but then has them meriting eternal life through her sacramentals.

The sacraments are not works at all, bacause it is God Who does all the saving work. "Sola Fide" could mean something Catholic as follows: True or mature faith in Jesus Christ would embrace the entirety of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and that necessarily would involve developing the virtues of good works as a corollary. So we can, at a risk of becoming sloppy of language, say that we are saved by mature faith alone.

“Would” is the key word.

However, I don't think anyone who takes the Holy Scripture seriously should contemplate a language merely to please the Protestants. The scripture plainly says that we are not saved by faith alone, so we are not.

Sola fide hold not by a faith that is alone, as such results in obedience to its Object. The CCC is more broad in its wording:

1260b "”Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

847 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, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

This may be interpreted to be a means to an end, but which woulds at least allow for becoming Protestant, but i think the sedevacantist understanding is right on this one. As for conciliatory language:

CCC 838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.

They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...” LUMEN GENTIUM

Conflicting interpretations exist in Rome regards this, and many other things.

early fathers seemed to teach sola fide, as seen here

I scanned your link and saw phrases like "In him and by their faith in him they were saved", which are clearly scriptural. I do not see anything that says that we are justified by faith ALONE. Again, this is what both the scripture and the consensus patrum teach:

We are saved by grace alone;
Grace is not of works;
We are saved though faith;
We are required to do good works of self-denial, love and charity;
We are not saved by works done for temporal reward (wage or social recognition) or in obedience of formal laws

St. Clement does say "we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men", but that passage is immersed in several chapters that urge good works: "let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength". So clearly, to St. Clement, faith includes good works rather than is separated from them.

And Sola fide literature does likewise, while holding that God-given faith is the actual instrument which procures justification, and being such a faith, it is thus coupled with works in expression. But straw men burn easier.

if baptism by desire is allowed, which Rome does, then it testifies to one being saved without works

This is a non-sequitur on two levels. First, like I mentioned before, sacraments are not works to begin with. To be sure, to hold a baby and dunk him in water, etc is work, but the real saving work of baptism is done by the Holy Ghost: mothers wash their babies every day and that operation does not save them. Second, that is is possible in some scenario to be saved without works (nailed to a cross like St. Dismas, paraplegic, etc.) does not disprove the general proposition that works are ordinarily required for salvation.

It is completely relevant as to the issue as to whether one must show works of faith obtain justification. If a paraplegic who never heard about Jesus can be saved in his last minutes by hearing and believing what Peter preached in Acts 10:36-43, then one can be saved through faith, though if he lived this faith would be shown in baptism, etc.

i have, even recently and in (my usual) extended manner corrected a leader who taught one is saved as long as they believe God's promise of salvation, even if they live contrary to it

Ah, good. Thank you.

I am glad if yoy are thankful, as it is not a RC church. And yet his (Baptist) church shows more works of love to the lost in both temporal and spiritual realms, in relation to their size, than any i know of, and manifests a high moral character as they focus on what faith is to do in obedience. But which does not excuse their doctrinal aberration and confusion.

The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins [quote from Catholic lit.]

That is because the Mass IS the Cross.

That is heretical. Reenactment illustrates but does not do what the Jesus did on the cross, in which "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit," (1 Peter 3:18) being ”once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28) for “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:26) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. " (Hebrews 10:10)

The Lord's supper commemorates that by remembering His unselfish shedding of blood and death by way of the symbols, and which the church partakes in it by being as He was in purchasing the church with his own blood, (Acts 20:28) by unselfishly loving each other in holy love. And failure to do so was the sin shown in 1Cor. 11:20-34.. And can while God has regard to man;s intercession, and forgiveness requires confessing with a heart that forsakes the sin, and restitution is to be made for wrongs where possible, forgiveness is obtained by the atonement of Christ, (1Jn. 1:9) which not only purifies, but saves from the wrath to come. (Jn. 3:38; Rm. 5:9; 1Thes. 1:10; 5:9) The Lord's supper is not set forth as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins.

On the rest of your "extended" quote, I generally would agree that a nuanced position on justification can be found among Catholics and Lutherans (as well as Anglicans and Methodists), but any such position would not leave any content worth calling "faith alone". It may be "faith manifested by good works", or "faith which leads to good works" or something like that, but never "faith alone".

As often stated, “alone” does not mean a faith that is alone, that will not produce obedience, nor does it mean conversion does not have preparatory works by God's grace, but that “to him that worketh not BUT believeth on Him that justifieth the unGodly,” “unto whom God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT works,” refers to faith alone being the actual instrumental means of essential justification by imputed righteousness, though since a faith that does not evidence itself (if able) is dead, works make it complete in its evidential sense, and confirm that one has salvation. And those who deeply realize they have nothing to offer God whereby they may morally merit eternal life eternal life with Him, but that their works instead damn them, and who thus look to Jesus to save them, like as the snake-smitten helpless to heal Israelites did toward the serpent in the wilderness, (Num. 21:6-9; Jn. 3:14,15) are the one who most manifestly shew their faith by their works, (cf. James 2:18) versus those who have confidence in their own moral worthiness and or the power of their church.

,

Thank you for another well done treatise on the subject.

I appreciate all the effort you put into bringing the truth to those blinded by deception.

you decided to edit out all "extraneous" names of my "To:" list

I edited nothing on the 'to' list. I sent that post to you just as it was when I responded to it....so it appears it did just go to you reagardless of who was listed on your to: post.

We know nothing of Linus, correct. That is surprising?

Clement was the Bishop of Rome with no "supremency" over the other Bishops. There was no such title as POPE!

That is true, the word Papa is of a later origin, and it was originally a term of endearment. The formal title is Bishop of Rome to this day. St Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians to instruct the Church in Corinth regarding some defrocked priests. That was far from Roman local jurisdiction.

“He brought His sacrifice across time to the Apostles BEFORE it occurred.”

Yes. He is God, remember?

Thank you, too.

Annalex could just create a ping list like the rest of us do.

I take names out of group pings that I don’t want in them. I do it regularly and it takes seconds. Annalex has easily demonstrated the mental facilities to manage a task like that.

Making it my responsibility that caww is getting pinged to annalex’s posts by annalex is blame shifting and just plain silly.

Every ping list I manage is arranged in alphabetical order to avoid duplicates. When I got the homeschool ping lists, there were a number of duplicate names because of them not being organized. I was able to trim the list size by alphabetizing them and have made that my policy since then.

Annalex: the fact that Mary adopted John, and a few others, are in the scripture does not mean that the only thing Sts Luke and John knew about her is wholly contained in the scriptures that they wrote. St. John, in fact, writes that he did not write down everything Chirst did -- what makes you think in the case of Mary all he knew were the Wedding at Cana?

Count-your-change: Then you know of some writings of Mary or Luke or John that are NOT contained in the Scriptures?

No, of course I don't, and possibly netieghr of them wrote anything else, but how does that negate what I wrote?

Mary adopted who? John? John was not a little child, was he? and who else did Mary adopt?M

Christ declared Mary mother of John and John son of Mary (John 19:26-27). When someone becomes a mother to someone else, that is called adoption where I come from.

she likely told a number of people that Luke could’ve consulted

Possibly, but note that the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) especially is written as a direct quote. Moreover, St. Luke counts himself among the direct witnesses of what he sets out to write (Luke 1:2).

NAB also presents (usually) the oldest manuscript versions known

I did not know that, but since it is a dynamic translation, what good does it do anyway?

Μετανοια, indeed, means more than simply changing one's mind about life and one's relationship to God. It means at least self examination followed by intense penitential prayer and even physical action.

As exemplified by St. John the Baptist the Forerunner. Note that all St. John did was action: he baptized, he wore a hairshirt and fasted, and lived in the desert. Other than profecy about the "axe being taken to the root", we don't know what exactly he taught his disciples. But we know he taught them certain praxis (Mark 2:18 and all four gospels). To speculate that somehow St. John's favorite word was referring to a pure state of mind is ignoring the evidence of the Gospel.

the Supreme Pontiff is the boss and only he can remove, "put on the shelf", and reassign Bishops

I did not dispute that part. I simply want to point out that the Church does not operate as a top-down command structure, like a military. The governing principle is subsidiarity: the decisions are made at the lowest instance capable in principle of making the decision.

The formal title is (false) Bishop of Rome

Corrected.

you decided to edit out all "extraneous" names of my "To:" list

I edited nothing on the 'to' list. I sent that post to you just as it was when I responded to it....so it appears it did just go to you reagardless of who was listed on your to: post.

I stand corrected. Yes, you chose to reply to "Old Reggie" and no one else. Others, including me, simply copy the "To:" list under the assumption that the poster meant to include the entire group.

I generally am among the group which copies the "To:" list editing out only my name.

It appears to me to be a matter of choice with no firm and fast rule concerning the proper protocol.

I have no argument with you or annalex, you each do it your individual way.

We know nothing of Linus, correct. That is surprising?

No, not surprising. Rather, it is typical. little is known of the lives of any of the so-called "unbroken line of Popes" for hundreds of years. Some cynics may even call it a fictional list. (sarc)

Clement was the Bishop of Rome with no "supremency" over the other Bishops. There was no such title as POPE!

That is true, the word Papa is of a later origin, and it was originally a term of endearment. The formal title is Bishop of Rome to this day. St Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians to instruct the Church in Corinth regarding some defrocked priests. That was far from Roman local jurisdiction.

Clements' letter was of a pastoral nature and certainly did not illustrate anything resembling a universal "Supreme Pontiff".

Annalex could just create a ping list like the rest of us do.

I take names out of group pings that I don’t want in them. I do it regularly and it takes seconds. Annalex has easily demonstrated the mental facilities to manage a task like that.

Making it my responsibility that caww is getting pinged to annalex’s posts by annalex is blame shifting and just plain silly.

Every ping list I manage is arranged in alphabetical order to avoid duplicates. When I got the homeschool ping lists, there were a number of duplicate names because of them not being organized. I was able to trim the list size by alphabetizing them and have made that my policy since then.

Yes, annalex could creat a ping list but has chosen not to.

Certainly it is not your responsibility to assure any post of yours to annalex does not include caww. It is simply that it is not unreasonable (in my opinion) for annalex to respond to your entire ping list under the assumption that your intention was to include the entire group.

If annalex posted directly to caww or added caww to a ping list I believe it would be every bit as improper as leaving a person, who had been discussed in the body of the post, off the ping list. Otherwise, I don't feel it's any big deal.

Ok..then it’s the copy paste deal which does it. I don’t copy and paste...I address those who posted their post. And if I want others to know I add their name in the to: slot.

the Supreme Pontiff is the boss and only he can remove, "put on the shelf", and reassign Bishops

I did not dispute that part. I simply want to point out that the Church does not operate as a top-down command structure, like a military. The governing principle is subsidiarity: the decisions are made at the lowest instance capable in principle of making the decision.

Yes - as in the military. The "Chain Of Command" structure of the Military and the Catholic Church follow the same principles.

"Papal infallibility" wasn't even declared a dogma of the Roman church until Pius IX decided to crown himself omnipotent during the First Vatican Council in 1870.

"If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema."

An old song, but it never loses its charm, does it?