Nor did his faith alone save him; the faith of Abraham is mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4 in order to contrast it to the legal work of circumcision, not to his other and numerous good works.
This is dealt with in the previous response to your gospel which has souls doing works of a believer in order to become a believer, while the texts does not make the qualification you desire, but shows that if works Abraham could justify one than Abraham would be able to boast, but that before he was even commanded to be circumcised his faith was what was counted for righteousness, though it was expressed in works.
Matthews 25:31-46 simply says that the first group is saved because they did good works and the second group is condemned because they did not do such works...your ideas about all works playing the same non-decisive role in justification does not match the scripture.
Certainly they do, in the sense that works evidence faith. Those that are “charged” with the Holy Spirit are known by the light they shine, and because they are believers they are blessed with the inheritance of the saints. It is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable with spiritual and eternal rewards. But the saints come to God with no merit to justify them, being as helpless as Abraham was to birth a multitude of peoples, but their God-given faith procures imputed righteousness, which they live out.
Faith that doesn’t work doesn’t “appropriates justification” and faith that works does.
It is a kind of faith that works obedience, but “worketh not” as regards moral merit, nor it is merely intellectual, as meaning a faith that would not show obedience, when able.
Surely you are not trying to say that a mere intellectual faith “appropriates justification”
Surely you are not contradicting that one CAN be justified by faith alone to one unable to work, while i extend inability to all, as being unable to do works which merit acceptance with God. Cornelius did good works which were preparatory to conversion, which as established before, process sola fide recognizes, but was forgiven and regenerated by believing. And then was baptized.
If his good works are not in evidence, he did not persevere and so no saint – he is not saved. So therefore, works are necessary for salvation,
In this evidentiary sense, as having a faith that will work obedience, yes, but not based on moral merit, as one comes to God with nothing.
Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 16: Of Good Works These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith [c]: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness [d], strengthen their assurance [e], edify their brethren [f], adorn the profession of the Gospel [g], stop the mouths of the adversaries [h], and glorify God [i], whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto [k], that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39
You got it, none of these guarantee that the faithful will continue in the faith.
It would be helpful if Roman Catholics understood the distinctions, as most understand Rome as disallowing being confident you are saved in their present tense, although as substantiated before, Trent allows for knowing you are one of the elect by “special revelation,” which certainly is subjective PI.
Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity.
This is great, but why then I continue to hear from some Protestants that imputed justification is purely forensic, where God merely overlooks the imperfections without removing them?
Calvinism and Arminian have a different “Ordo Salutis.” but both camps confess being washed, sanctified and justified (1Cor. 6:11) is all one event. Calvinism does get into precision with its terms, and equates the awakening of the soul to believe as regeneration, and among Arminianism faith & repentance usually go together, as they must, though the evident works of repentance follow. (Acts 26:20)
As for practical me, i see (to reiterate again) the main thing being man being destitute of any means whereby he can morally merit glory of God, (Rm. 3:23) and instead his sins damn him, (Rm. 3:9-20) thus rightly abasing man and exalting God, in which position he can only look to God for mercy in Christ, who justifies the UnGodly through faith, "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference" (Romans 3:22)
As for order, I see (through a glass, darkly) God preparing souls for salvation by conviction of need, (Jn. 16:8) and drawing souls to Christ, (Jn. 12:32) and opening the heart (Acts 16:14) and granting repentance and faith, (Acts 11:18) with as many as were ordained to eternal life believing, (Acts 13:48) being washed — forgiven of all trespasses, (Col. 2:13) justified — by imputed righteousness, (Rm. 4:5,6;22-24) and sanctified — by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but which is also progressive. (2Thes. 2:13)
Also, what you wrote before makes justification a process rather than a single event. Baptism is an event, but “living out this new identity” is itself a part of justification, is it not?
I have indeed provided much substantiation that Sola fide neither supports a kind of faith that would not produce obedience towards its Object or that it excludes any preparatory work by God in the heart of those who are to be justified. Yet as the imputed righteousness is understood to be that of Christ, who as the scapegoat, became sin for us, then it holds that this cannot be increased, but that its practical outworking is always to have a greater realization, having “its fruit unto holiness, and in the end, eternal life.”
availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside.
So St. Peter was wondering if Simon would forbid the seaside?
First you tried to support non-immersion baptism by suggesting Peter was looking for a water held around a house in a bucket, and when i pointed out to you that the house was by the sea, you think "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) refers to opposition by Simon? He is not even mentioned, but contextually Peter is responding to “they of the circumcision” who found this hard to take, and in any case it does not support Peter looking for a bucket over immersion.
”Born again”, by the way, is what happens at baptism (John 3:3-8, Titus 3:5) and not at the Eucharist, so in the narrow technical sense you are,. I suppose, correct when you say that the Eucharist does not make one born again.
Yes, that is clear, and which means that Jn. 6:53 cannot refer to the Eucharist, as having life has already been accomplished by believing the word, but if you do not you have no life in you. (Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:8.9)
I wonder what would it have been that Christ could say so that you could believe Him.
John, of all the apostles, makes that clear. Hearing and believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ is always what resulted in life in one, and to “live by” something in that context refers to the word of God, and only once in all the epistles to the churches on doing that is the Lord's supper mentioned, and which was to correct a problem with the manner of doing so, not to promote it as a means of regeneration or worshiping the elements and making it a means of expiation for sin.
If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?
You are reading this into the text. They did not have to leave, but left for the same reason that Nicodemus supposed he had to be physically born again, because they mistook Jesus enigmatic speech as referring to the physical, and with that mind also rejected His talk of ascending “up where he was before.” However, Jesus words in Jn. 6:63,64 refer to believing in Him who “hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68) in the sense where it elsewhere in John does, that which Peter confirms in v. 69, “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” This this just what Mt. 16:16 confesses, and what John Mary does in John 11:25-27. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
And as stated before, believing the gospel is always what gave life, and believers eat and drink Jesus the same way Jesus explained it: " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) which was not by literally eating His body, but by living according to His word, the doing of which was Jesus “bread.” (Jn. 4:34)
As for 1Cor. 11, Paul's words are not the “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you consume Jesus body and blood, soul and divinity,” which you read into words such as “drinking” a cup, but “ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” Not recognizing transubstantiation is not in view here, but how Jesus death was remembered by the breaking of bread is, and contextually refers to showing the kind of love for the corporate body of Christ that He did in purchasing it with His own blood, as briefly explained on FR here. That “body” is what Paul continues to focus on in the next chapter. If Roman Catholics will not see this, then they need more than additional explanation, and the insistence on making the apostles out to be drinking blood and Jn. 6 to refer to spiritual life through such is a testimony to loyalty to men over objective exegesis.
Daniel: if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out
How so? There is a single Catechism that contains the doctrines all Catholics hold together; when a doctrine allows for debate that fact is itself a matter of unified doctrine.
Other churches can have similar, but what was meant by comprehensive doctrinal unity is that of completeness, and while churches from Rome to cults boast of some degree of comprehensive doctrinal unity, this has never been realized in completeness, which is exceedingly extensive, though in the Bible the early church heart had a unity of the Spirit in surrender to Christ and the core salvific light they had, which is possible today. Some issues would be dealt with more, but not exhaustively all, and to be of the same mind and judgment can mean we recognize what are clear core salvific essentials and allow some degree of inquiry and disagreement in others, in the context of a right heart before God.
It was deviation from basic truths and carnality that was targeted for censure in the epistles, and the Lord reproved a sectarian spirit among His apostles. (Mk. 9:38-40) On this spiritual level, i known quite well what manner of unity Rome has amongst itself, despite disagreements, versus that of evangelicals, despite disagreements, and which i have already commented on.
As for doctrinal unity, as said before, Rome has official defined little of the Bible, and those pronouncements are themselves in need of interpretations, while limited disagreement is allowed in non-infallible teachings, though disagreement reigns as to what all is or isn’t. Meanwhile, i do not think the early church doubted such things as whether Moses authored most of the Pentateuch, or if Jonah was really swallowed by a fish, by which things Rome's approved scholarly works typically deny but evangelicals typically contend for.
Daniel by what means is it established who is the OTC is?
By the way, not that it matters greatly, I would not use the term “Old Testament Church”. The Catholic Church was established at the Pentecost;
I would not use it ether here: it means One True Church, as explained before. As for the latter statement, another FR Roman Catholic apologist here contends it started in the gospels. Yet, as said before, the surety of the claim that Scripture and history renders Rome to be the 1st century church is based upon her claim that her claim is infallible truth, which disallows evidence to the contrary from determining it.
Responding to these has taken a lower priority by now, with other things needing attention.
I’d say, worker doing works of the worker in order to become also a believer. Faith is a good thing but faith without works is dead.
It is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable
But Jesus never said that. He simply says, do this and you are justified, don’t do this and you are not justified. You seem to understand that it is works that counts, not faith alone and then you turn around and construct this faith-alone nonsense out of whole cloth.
a kind of faith that works obedience
First, no. It is a kind of faith that works love. God doesn’t ask us to obey Him, He asks us to Love Him. Second, as your Catholic personality understands, since faith must work something to procure salvation, we are not saved by faith alone.
Cornelius did good works which were preparatory to conversion
They were already conversion in progress.
Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 16: Of Good Works These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith [c]: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness [d], strengthen their assurance [e], edify their brethren [f], adorn the profession of the Gospel [g], stop the mouths of the adversaries [h], and glorify God [i], whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto [k], that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
This is legalistic trickery. The good part is that rightly this confession separates good works from works in general, and certainly from works done for a temporal reward or under a legal obligation, juist as the Gospel does. It is also not incorrect to say that good works are fruits and evidences of faith. So that chapter 16 is by itself a passing grade, maybe a C. Not higher than that, because the idea that God who knows our hearts nevertheless for some reason needs evidences and fruits is silly. If I give my shirt to another, that is not because God needs evidence of faith but because that slob needs a shirt.
But the Westminster confession of “faith” also says in Ch. 11
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3] II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]This is counterscriptural garbage. The reference to the most odious part, [2] is Romans 4, “to him that worketh not”, a passage dealing with the fact that the justification of Abraham once in his life was advanced by a pure faith before being circumcised.
most understand Rome as disallowing being confident you are saved in their present tense
Most simply don’t understand very much about “Rome”. One should indeed be confident that the motherly cares of the Catholic Church will lead him to salvation assuredly. But that confidence is that of a builder who has the materials, the tools and the skill to build; it is not the stupid and sinful false confidence that a once-saved-always-saved Protestant has, who once decided he is an accomplished piece of work.
you think "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) refers to opposition by Simon?
I think that the question is rhetorical but this turn of a phrase is only possible if the water was to be either given or not given for that purpose; this suggests not a public space but a water in a private possession, most naturally, a bucket or some other vessel.
Annalex: the Eucharist does not make one born again [the Baptism does]
Daniel: Yes, that is clear, and which means that Jn. 6:53 cannot refer to the Eucharist, as having life has already been accomplished by believing the word
Baptism begins a Christian life, the Eucharist sustains it. Both are necessary in order to obtain life eternal.
only once in all the epistles to the churches on doing that is the Lord's supper mentioned, and which was to correct a problem with the manner of doing so
This is true of most Pauline Epistles, -- they are written to correct problems, not to teach comprehensive theology. Now, why is it that the fact that the Eucharist is mentioned in every gospel, -- the actual Eucharist being offered at the Last Supper in the synoptic, and its nature discussed at length in John’s – is not enough unless several epistles also discuss it? Hermeneutics replacing the Bible again?
Annalex: If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?
Daniel: You are reading this into the text. They did not have to leave, but left for the same reason that Nicodemus supposed he had to be physically born again
The difference is that with Nicodemus, Jesus explains that the birth of the spirit is not the same as birth of the water. In the case of the Jews in John 6, Jesus explains that indeed He would give them His flesh to eat and they leave. If Jesus meant faith when He said “food”, He could have explained himself better like He did with Nicodemus, but He never softened his “food indeed”. That is because he meant it – He was, you know, Catholic.
As for 1Cor. 11, Paul's words are not the “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you consume Jesus body and blood, soul and divinity,” which you read into words such as “drinking” a cup, but “ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”
The Eucharist certainly shows the Lord’s death, but it also is the Body of Christ as is clear from 1 Cor 11:29.
i do not think the early church doubted such things as whether Moses authored most of the Pentateuch, or if Jonah was really swallowed by a fish, by which things Rome's approved scholarly works typically deny
Matter of fact, you can find plenty of allegorical explanations in the Holy Fathers of the Church alongside literal ones. In today’s gospel, for example, Venerable Bede explains:
under the name of camel, He wished Himself to he understood, because He bore the burden of our weakness; and by the needle, He understands the prickings, that is, the pains of His Passion. By the eye of a needle, therefore, He means the straits of His Passion (Feb. 28)
I know, it is not the same as explaining away Jonas’ whale, but this illustrates the style of so-called “mystical” explanations common among the fathers. The idea that the Bible has multiple meanings for the same passage is very patristic and very Catholic.
the surety of the claim that Scripture and history renders Rome to be the 1st century church is based upon her claim that her claim is infallible truth
It is based on the fact that both the acts of the Early Church and the doctrines given in the New Testament all match the Catholic Church today with differences being matter of elaboration and style.