Clearly. Paul is directly quoting it. When people quote things, they are quoting within that context! Thus, when Paul is quoting OT Scripture, he is calling to mind THAT context, not inventing a new doctrine!
I see the connection between Rom. 3:10-12 and Psalm 14, but I don't see how this carries through to Rom. 3:23. Since you apparently do not believe Paul was shifting gears starting with verse 21, how long does Paul use words like "all" or "all men" and only refer to the Jews? I suppose you are going to tell me that verse 24 means that all of the unfaithful Jews are saved by grace? But wait, you already agreed with me that the reference was to the elect, not the Jews. This is very confusing.
Holiness doesn't necessarily follow from being book smart or knowledgeable about doctrines.
I know exactly what you mean and agree completely.
Why can't God continue to work through men whom He has promised would be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Why can't the Holy Spirit allow us to KNOW the fullness of the Truth through other men whom have been verified by the community and the Scriptures?
Those are fair questions, and my answer is that certainly God COULD have done that. However, based on the results I have seen, I cannot reconcile them back to God on every account. I do not see how scripture and Tradition can both be right.
Did any Jew consider Moses as a fallible teacher? Check the Gospels. Sure, they knew he had sinned by striking the rock again. But they were confident that God spoke through Moses in an infallible manner.
While you do raise an interesting point in distinguishing between infallibility and sinlessness, in this case I must still strongly disagree. After everything they had seen with their own eyes, what were the Jews doing while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments? What did the Jews do in the desert to warrant their wandering for 40 years? How many times did the Jews grumble at Moses? If I put myself in their place, it would not have occurred to me to do any of these things if I thought my leader was an infallible teacher.
Your own tradition has led you to believe that ONLY the Bible can be the source of faith - although that is NOT IN THE BIBLE. Thus, it comes from Protestant TRADITION. Would it be fair to say you are being hypocritical?
No, that would not be fair. :) Sola Scriptura has a solid foundation in scripture, which you have been shown. You disagree with the Biblical interpretations, and that is fine. One difference is that we both agree that what I use is an authority, while the reverse is not true.
How do you know that EVERY writing in the Bible is from God? How do you know that some didn't get left out? Only the Church can witness to the Bible's source and completeness.
You're right, the assembling of the Bible was too hard for God, or maybe He just didn't have time. Thank God the Church for its witness and authority in assembling the Bible in all its wisdom. Only God the Church could determine which books were correct for inclusion into the Bible.
Some believe that the Bible is inerrant in only matters pertaining to salvation. Thus, historical or scientific errors don't matter. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that. She teaches that God's revelation is inerrant.
On this one, I am squarely with you! :)
God "foresees" everything we do. Thus, He is able to plan accordingly without destroying our free will.
UGH! :) You are implying again that God plans His will around the decisions He already knows we have made. Yet, you will deny this!
FK: "I don't see how a man can use his free will to just "decide" to be perfect."
Me neither. But God doesn't require man to be perfect to enter the Kingdom. All those righteous people in the OT. Were ANY of them perfect or without sin???
You are taking me completely out of context. The subject of my quote was the authorship of the Bible. Look it up. I was supporting my view that God was in control of what went into the Bible, not men. I wasn't talking at all about salvation.
FK: "Even when you say that God foresaw, either He is the luckiest God of all time to have everything work out as He wanted, OR, He ordained and caused it to be so, OR, He saw what man came up with and said OK."
Forget about luck. But there is truth to all of the rest of what you said. God is a truly magnificent God. He brings out His will, despite our own will (which means we sometimes sin). Thus, God's will is done, and we remain free.
I was presenting mutually exclusive options! :) How can you say the latter two are OK? The only way that is possible is if God saw man's choices, and then molded His plan around them. That infringes on God's sovereignty.
Paul throughout is attacking proud Jews! Even into Chapter 4, when he uses David and Abraham as examples of people who were justified WITHOUT THE LAW!
"But now, without the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" 3:21
See, there are two systems of pleasing God. The first is under the Law. Those who try to consider themselves under the Law must fulfill it to the letter, perfectly. For any transgression against an infinite being is an offense against the entire Law and against God. Since ALL men sin over the course of their lives, these Jews, who are trying to earn their salvation by good deeds (without inner disposition of love) are failures.
The other system to come to God is through faith, under the system of grace. This system was in place even BEFORE Christ - as many people WERE righteous in God's eyes based on their faith and trust in Him. Abraham was considered righteous BEFORE his circumcision...thus:
"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by [the] law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that [a] man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" 3:27-28
Remember what Paul had said previously about Gentiles who didn't have the Law???
"when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature that which is of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, accusing and also excusing their reasonings one with another) in the day when God shall judge that which men have covered up, according to my gospel by Jesus, the Christ. Behold, thou doth call thyself a Jew and art supported by the law and doth glory in God and dost know [his] will and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art [a] guide of the blind, [a] light of those who [are] in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant" 2:14-20
A pretty clear comparision between the Gentiles who don't have the Decalogue, and those who do...
"For circumcision verily profits if thou keep the law, but if thou art a rebel to the law, thy circumcision is made [into] a foreskin. Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his foreskin be counted for circumcision?" Rom 2:25-26
Those who try to live under the law, and not faith, will fail.
he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.: Rom 2:29
It is not following the Law that makes one justified, it is turning one's heart to God - this, naturally, becomes a Law onto itself. Inner disposition - faith - is what God desires to see manifested from us. Not simple following rules. Those who try to earn salvation must be perfect. Those who come to God through faith are justified in God's eyes. They rely on God's grace, a free gift. They treat God as a loving Father who will fulfill His promises. This is what Paul is saying in the first several chapters of Romans, not that all men are evil by nature.
However, based on the results I have seen, I cannot reconcile them back to God on every account. I do not see how scripture and Tradition can both be right.
So because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned, yet IS by the first Christians, it never happened - or it happened without permission of God! Again, the Apostles who wrote Scripture were the same men who spread other teachings throughout the world that were taken for granted and were not addressed in letters to communities. As to your perceived difference between Scripture and Tradition, I don't see it.
After everything they had seen with their own eyes, what were the Jews doing while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments? What did the Jews do in the desert to warrant their wandering for 40 years? How many times did the Jews grumble at Moses? If I put myself in their place, it would not have occurred to me to do any of these things if I thought my leader was an infallible teacher.
Certainly, they highly respected him, but that doesn't mean they would listen to him. Heck, we see this today in the Catholic Church! We have an infallible teacher, the Pope. But many "catholics" believe something totally at odds with him, such as abortion. Having an infallible teacher doesn't mean people are "forced" to follow such teachings.
Sola Scriptura has a solid foundation in scripture, which you have been shown.
You've shown me no such thing. I have given you verses that describe OTHER means of fully completing the Christian that doesn't mention Scriptures. Being "useful" doesn't make something the sole source of our faith, brother. And Sola Scriptura is actually ANTI-SCRIPTURAL, as it ignores what Paul said to the Thessalonians, when he commanded them to hold onto the traditions taught, both ORAL and WRITTEN. You would have Christians disobey the Bible's command! Sorry, Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men because it moves people away from some of the teachings given by God to the Apostles, such as Infant Baptism.
You're right, the assembling of the Bible was too hard for God, or maybe He just didn't have time. Thank God the Church for its witness and authority in assembling the Bible in all its wisdom
You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that God did anything regarding writing or inspiring the Bible WITHOUT the witness of the Church. Anyone can claim that a writing "inspires" them. As I said before, I can write a story and claim God wrote it through me...You are making a presumption that God had something to do with the Bible. And you have not explained how you know God had anything to do with the Scriptures. HOW DO YOU KNOW?
You are implying again that God plans His will around the decisions He already knows we have made. Yet, you will deny this!
You are putting God in time again.
I was supporting my view that God was in control of what went into the Bible, not men.
How do you know that?
The only way that is possible is if God saw man's choices, and then molded His plan around them. That infringes on God's sovereignty.
You keep putting God into time. God's decisions are made in the past to us, but in the eternal now of God. He sees across all time, so "when" He makes a decision, it "was" made both during creation, during the crucifixion, during WW 2, and 20 years from now. One decision spanned across all of our times. So in a sense, yes, He does see our response and makes His decisions at the "same time".
What infringes on God's sovereignty is a human claiming that he is saved despite future sins that would cause him to lose his future inheritance.
Regards