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.
“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”.”
Whe Jesus said if He cast out devils by the Spirit of God then the Kingdom of God has come near to them, does that mean as long as He cast out devils the Kingdom was near or that the casting out of the devils by the Spirit was evidence that the kingdom was near?
Very much so. They express the same reality of conquering sin and gaining eternal life for the individual.
In that case, why do you suppose the Bible uses each term distinctly very often? Is the same word used for both in Greek? I notice again that you focus salvation and justification on the deeds of men, rather than God.
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 enough to ask, the Church will give him grace to overcome it till, as he is sanctified, he does not sin any longer.
The Church will give him grace. Men will give him grace. I am surprised because with my experience, this really shouldn't surprise me. :) I suppose I am taken aback a little because I have not heard it in these terms before, but it is consistent.
FK: "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.
As you know, I LOVE plain text. :) The strictest sense of this quote would be that "God sent God, as God, and now He sends the Apostles, as God". This is untenable to either of us. So, what is the point of the quote? I contend that it is that Jesus was "sent" under complete and total authority. Under this same authority, Jesus sent His disciples into the world. That is "HOW" they were sent, a synonym for "as".