it would be wrong to impugn the transformational misanthropic self-effacing "me, filthy rags", followed by the bolt of lightning proclamation "I have been saved!" type conversion, as it is entirely Biblical.
The Psalm says, "I humbled myself and the Lord saved me". As St. Symeon the New Theologian put it "I neither fasted or slept on bare ground or kept vigils but ... I did no more than believe and the Lord accepted me" (On Faith -- I don't have an online reference). Humility is good, the way Protestant communities of faith practice it is infected with the Total Depravity nonsense (I know, you don't subscribe), ostentatious and often grotesque. But, yes, the idea is totally biblical. Christ humbled Himself.
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?
I agree that man is fallen, sinful by nature, damnable and unable to repent and call upon Christ to be saved. (Jn. 6:44; Acts 11:18) But i do not see man as damned due to what Adam did, but because they yield to their inherited Adamic nature, according to the light they have.
what you not find is souls being treated as if they were Christians due to infant baptism and perfunctory professions, which prevail in institutionalized religion of any camp
You are a Christian, moreover, born again Christian, and once-saved Christian thanks to infant (or any other) baptism. 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". I know you don't have it, but you should not brag of not having it.
The idea that a mere perfunctory confession saves is more heretical than supposing infants are born again by proxy faith. As for me “not having it,” have been there, and done that, both in perfunctory manner and sincere from the heart, and that is one reason i know it is in critical deviation from gospel faith.
the typical Catholic is politically and morally less conservative and more liberal.
It si neither here or there, even though it is in a way true. I simply said that we all agree as a practical matter on what is right and what is wrong. As to conservatism, Catholicism does not necessarily match American Conservatism shaped after all by mostly Evangelical Protestants. Also, it is helpful to distinguish "cultural Catholics" to are Catholic because they are Italian or something, and committed, Rosary-praying, in-church-every-chance-they-get Catholics. Then tend to be overwhelmingly conservative and in the genuine sense of the word.
It is true that American Conservatism is mostly shaped by mostly Evangelical Protestants and that Catholicism does not overall match it, but liberal moral and social views predominate where it does. 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 and what it effectually promotes.
You stated before there were not two classes, and Rome does not treat them as such, whatever else is said, and when she boasts of her numbers she is including them.
Total depravity of man and limited atonement are not uniformly held;
Thank God, no. But whty do you think that theological idiocy developed on the Protestant soil in the first place?
TD need not not mean utter depravity, but can mean that while man is depraved in every part of his being, he is not a bad as he could be, nor unable to do objectively “good” things, which is by God's common grace, but his motive is not the “good of their glory of God or as consistent with His will. Saul of Tarus was seeking to serve God, but not in accordance with His truth. And we all agree man cannot come to Christ unless he/she is drawn (the word does actually means dragged as like a net) and repentance is granted. (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18)
As for idiocy, often this is a manifest by those who make bold statements based upon a superficial understanding of the issue, but if we really get into theology, we often realize that such doctrines are the result of souls honestly seeking to be consistent with Scripture, and that included some in Roman Catholicism, and TD is no more unreasonable than original sin, which is where it comes from. And as with LA, you need to first look to Catholics and its soil for those.
But (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?
if there is any group that between the two at issue that is “very much about practice” it more evangelicals
Yeah. Perhaps, that is compensation for bad theology. I wondered the same thing, even on this thread.
So its not really about evangelical not working out their faith, but about not working out Rome's.
On the other hand, Catholic contribution is often overlooked because it comes in form of schools, universities, hospitals, foreign aid, -- all things done institutionally and not through local, visible effort.
And “government issue” too easily fosters overall complacency.
the Inquisitions
I am a big fan, so don't knock them.
Sounds ominous. But before you turn us in see below.
One thing you probalby agree wrong with Protestantism is no way to discipline outright heresy. Nothing would prevent Protestants to develop modern and enlightened ways to deal with its own bad apples and they are perfectly free from any medieval baggage the Holy Inquisition might have.
Nothing but the Bible. Please show us where the New Testament ruled over those without or used physical punishment to disciple its members. Paul and the early church had nothing to do with disciplining those without, and besides passive disfellowship, he used spiritual power to discipline members. (1Cor. 5:5,12; 1Tim. 1:20)
You can try to extrapolate sanction for the church using the sword of men out of the disciples being given two swords, (Lk. 22:35-38) but even them two was said to be enough, and those that live by it shall die by it, (Matthew 26:52) and what the New Testament clearly states and examples is that Jesus kingdom is not of this world, and if it were then His disciples would physically fight, (Jn. 18:36) while instead “we do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds,” (2Cor. 10:3,4) as we in the true church “do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12). Apostolic power, which Rome vainly seeks to claim, was established by ear constant manifest supernatural power, along with Scriptural conformity and complementarity in character and doctrine, and the rod they used to discipline was not a physical one, but spiritual. (Acts 5:1-10; 1Cor. 4:20)
Rome in contrast, persecuted Bible Christians, just as “he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,” (Gal. 4:29) using the sword of men which the Holy Spirit sanctioned the civil powers to use, (1Pet. 2:13,14) not the church, and its use of it by both Roman Catholic and Protestants has resulted in a lasting negative testimony.
alleviate poor souls in her mythical purgatory
An indulgence, by the way, is a good example of practicing heroic virtue that we spoke about earlier. Didn't you just get done telling me that works done to advance one's own salvation are like working for wage? Well, here's one work one can do that is demonstrably not wage. Further, the Prutgatory is wholly biblical, check 1 Cor 3:8-15. It surely is more biblical than Faith Alone.
Resorting to 1 Cor 3:8-15 is an admission of defeat, as that text is specifically about the works being burned up and one losing rewards. "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.” “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 3:8,14-15) Purgatory on that other hand, is about the interior self being purged, based upon some verses which are about punishment, or wrested out of text speaking about the need for holiness to see God, while the New Testament only reveals believers going directly to be with the Lord upon death, as long as they die in faith. Even Augustine disagrees with you, though he if off as well.
Holding the church to be a material means of salvation is one thing; holding that taking part in the Lord's supper is necessary to have life in you, which many RC's erroneously suppose Jn. 6:53 means, is another
That is what "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh ... He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day", -- means.
That is literally in-credible. To prove your conclusion, please show where taking part in the Lord's supper was preached as the means to get life in you.
Again, we read what is written, Protestants build up long sophistries to run away from clear scripture. We can have a separate discussion on the words of Institution in the light of John 6, but for a brief note on that, please do not think that because "the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life" it means that the "food indeed" became all spiritual food toward the end of the chapter. The Eucharist is not something from which the stomach profits, -- that is what it says. That is what "spiritual" means, one that feeds the soul.
If you understood the meaning of the word “sophistry,” and could allow yourself to think objectively, which you are not allowed to do, then you could recognized that is the Roman Catholic argument which again i have already extensively dealt with. Salvation is always given by believing on Jesus in Acts, consistent with John, while living by eating Jesus flesh is analogous to how Jesus lived by father, which was by His word, (Mt. 4:4) and thus to do His will was Jesus “bread,” (Jn. 4:34). The very idea that physical food feeds one spiritually is antithetical to the gospel of John in particular, and life under the New covenant. Jesus would ascend up to Heaven, but His word remained - and not something about “transubstantiation, but the gospel give eternal life (1Cor. 15:1-4) - and it is His words that are Spirit and life. (Jn. 6:62,63)
Sorry for the typos -- I got to run off to work.
While your wresting of Scripture is not good, you sure must be able to type much faster than i, and this may be taking took much time.
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".