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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.