The examples of the requirenments of Catholic Faith that you posted rpeceding this statement are simply description of faith such as it is. They are not prohibitions against an examination, perhaps critical, of the Catholic Faith, -- it would be a good thing if such examination is undertaken. They tell us at which point the faith ceases to be Catholic. The demarkation is in itself helpful. For example, many people believe with the Catholics because of the conviction that the Catholic Church is the historical Church founded by Christ. For this historical approach is is very helpful to know what historically was held as crossing a line into heresy.
the primary Orthodox disagreement is a fundamental one, the very primacy and infallibility of the pope upon which Rome rises and falls
Rome does not "rise and fall" on that. We are well aware that the historical developments particularly in the West (consider the feudal fragmentation not fully experienced in the East and later the Protestant heresy) -- priduced a highly centralized Roman Church, whereas the Orthodox East that had to deal with military enemy of the Islam rather than a heresy -- had to develop the precisely opposite, decentralized model in order to survive. Rome does not hold the same rigid line vis a vis the Uniate Churches who are not infected with either Protestantism or relativism. We repeatedly have said that the Eastern Orthodox Church is, as far as we are concerned, ready for reunioon as it is today, with the concept of papacy that it holds today.
“Usually wins??” Only as defined by her
Naturally. I do not get your references to some possible misconduct, but the fact remains that Rome views itself as an apostolic, that is one preserving an historical deposit, church.
that is called a extrapolation, as what you see is a promise made to an individual, not to posterity [in reference to the promises of the infallible Church and papacy in Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32[
No, the text does not suggest that. First, there is nothing in the text to suggest anything less than a cosmic promise. To offer "the gates/powers of Hell shall not prevail against my Church" or "thy brethren will be sifted like wheat but I pray to thee to confirm them" in the context of a divine revelation asserted to be given to Peter and the solemnity of the Last Supper is to severely understate the gospel. Second, the person of Peter is significantly undermined in those very passage: Peter is one who will deny Christ, and one who tries to persuade Jesus to abandon His mission.
Christ being it [the Rock]
That is exactly the point. Were Christ not typified by the rock, we might say that it is one of forms of praise, like calling John an dJames the sons of Thunder. But here we have a real delegation of authority, and it is the only context in which "feed my sheep" makes sense.
when James the brother of John died (Mt. 10:2; Acts 12:2) no successor is mentioned, nor a provision made for selecting one as was made for Judas. It is incongruous that the Holy Spirit of truth would not have made that manifest if it were to be so, while the criteria for ordaining elders/bishops (same office, and not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) was faith and character, (1Tim. 3:1-7) which would exclude many papal successors from even being church members. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
St. James' martyrdom was in the context of a Church fully functioning. For example, St. Paul -- not a natural apostle -- was already active as an equeal to the apostles bishop of the Church. The Church was no longer a Hebrew institution. That must mark the time when the pivot from the Church of the Twelve to the Catholic Church of very many was accomplished.
The very idea that preservation of the faith requires [a magisterium] is a contradiction
Where in the scripture do we see it? I see where it is scriptural: "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts Of Apostles 20:28).
you won't get far in any most evangelical denominations if you disagree with fundamentals either, and historically those who have were marked as heretics
The Catholic Church allows a great lenience in interpreting of the scripture while she is quite specific as to what doctrines are Catholic. That is consistent with the Catholic method whereby it is the Church rather than the scripture which is the rule of faith. The fault that I see here is not in the Catholics avoiding to fix an interpretation to the scripture we already hold inerrant, but with the Protestants who would allow notions that cannot at the same time be true, like whether or not there is a free will, -- to co-exist.
disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses, is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture
Certainly, if you are of the opinion that the Old Testament iterprets itself, the you should keep kosher and reject Acts 15 which contravened the Mosaic law. But if you consider Christianity to be true religion, then i=you have to understand that the law of Moses was replaced in Christianity by law of grace.
seeking to be like a Berean and continue to use their means
.. is a good thing and I am convinced that anyone who honestly examines the Holy Scripture wil end up if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox.
EENS is yet disputed among Roman Catholics and Vatican Two is in contrast to the most historical understand of it, but Rome lost her secular teeth needed to carry out her animosity against men like Huss, Tyndale, etc.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is understood as it always has been, that when an dif one is saved, he is saved as a Roman Catholic. We don't know if Hus or Tyndale were saved. Our best effort was to ensure their salvation. If they were, they were Catholic when they died. It si not too late by the way, to pray for Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Bruno, or any other heretic.
Annalex: We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46).
Daniel: And rightly so, as how can faith or love be judged except by what it does?
Indeed. So works are how we are justified.
Mormons say the like
I did not know that the Mormons claimed to have the sacraments, but if they do, it should not be our criterion what they mistakenly think of themselves.
What typical passes for religion in Rome is perfunctory professions
No. Professions are means to an end, but they are not "religion". It is, in fact the cornerstone Protestnat error to think that confessional faith is alone salvific. A profession of faith that is deeply held, and a profession of faith that is "perfunctory" are equally irrelevant to salvation. Here's the parable to explain:
A certain man had two sons; and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work today in my vineyard. [29] And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. [30] And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering, said: I go, Sir; and he went not. [31] Which of the two did the father's will? They say to him: The first. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you
The saving faith does the works. The perfunctory faith feels the feel.
Annalex I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
Daniel You made the assertion, now you must prove it.
Prove it how? I stated, there is no X. Prove to me by showing X.
Catholics last in Bible reading, with one study (Rasmussen) also showing 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible (apart from church)
Naturally. It is not a good thing, but it shows that Bible reading in itself is not anything salvific.
“Any way you cut it, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.”
It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass. The scripture read at Mass is essential scripture and it combines the Old and the New Testaments together so that a deeper understanding is acheived. I don't know what "functional knowldege" is; I agree that biblical apologetics among the Catholics is poor.
the Lord and His disciples were good at proving their claims by Scripture.
It is something the Catholics need to get better at.
the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and Assumption, praying to the departed, mandated Priestly celibacy (except some converts), more resembles the work of cults. That is because these do not depend upon Biblical warrant,
No, they do not. so why do you mentin them? I diod not say, "everything the Church teaches in in the Bible". I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?
Rome's claim to authority rests upon self-proclamation of her supreme authority, not Biblical manifestation of the truth.
It rests on the authority you can ascertain from the Bible, such as the authority to "bind and loose" (Mt 16-18). It also rests on the continuing existence of the same church through 2 thousand years. Howeverm, no one is claiming that no interpretation of the Bible can be found that is not in a seeming contradiction to the Church. It is just not a real contradiction.
your judgment must be dismissed as you cannot concede that anything in opposition to Rome's official teaching can be true
I do say that. But you are still at liberty to offer your opposition, and if I do not have a reasonable argument for Rome, the reader will see that. so far, I did not see anythign that would objectively be a challenge to Rome; I have seem agreement on the essential point, that works of charity and faith are necessary. I also have seen much backpedaling form that biblical fact. I really would like to get that part of the argument done with, so if you have an rgument on how Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach justification by works of charity, I would like to pursue that.
The examples of the requirenments of Catholic Faith that you posted rpeceding this statement are simply description of faith such as it is. They are not prohibitions against an examination, perhaps critical, of the Catholic Faith, -- it would be a good thing if such examination is undertaken.
Of course they are prohibitions against further seeking to validate what Rome has infallible declared. “..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?”
"Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned.”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
They tell us at which point the faith ceases to be Catholic. The demarkation is in itself helpful. For example, many people believe with the Catholics because of the conviction that the Catholic Church is the historical Church founded by Christ. For this historical approach is is very helpful to know what historically was held as crossing a line into heresy.
They do more than that, and while educating oneself is one thing, examining things objectively as to ascertain the validity of what Rome has officially taught is to doubt it. At one time (changeable) canon law (open to some interpretation) generally forbade lay persons from engaging in debate question of dogmatic or moral theology with “heretics.”
the primary Orthodox disagreement is a fundamental one, the very primacy and infallibility of the pope upon which Rome rises and falls
Rome does not "rise and fall" on that.
I said primary, and what i said remains true.
We are well aware that the historical developments particularly in the West (consider the feudal fragmentation not fully experienced in the East and later the Protestant heresy) -- priduced a highly centralized Roman Church, whereas the Orthodox East that had to deal with military enemy of the Islam rather than a heresy -- had to develop the precisely opposite, decentralized model in order to survive. Rome does not hold the same rigid line vis a vis the Uniate Churches who are not infected with either Protestantism or relativism. We repeatedly have said that the Eastern Orthodox Church is, as far as we are concerned, ready for reunioon as it is today, with the concept of papacy that it holds today.
On what conditions did she say that to the “defective” EO? Or will Rome reject Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception , etc.?
“The Orthodox Church cannot accept the papal or institutional concept of the Church, for many reasons. Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. As can be seen from a study of the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise anything close to the kind of power now claimed by the Popes during this crucial period of Church history.” http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076
As regards the interesting causual theory, the papacy can also be explained as a result of the Roman church largely taking on the form and function and means of the Roman Empire. But in self-criticism (even though i am not bound to defend a monolithic communion), Protestantism itself, being of necessity (Acts 11:19) born of division, too easily resorts to such, even if it does typically work against atrophy and for continued growth in the body of Christ, resulting from such cell division versus remaining within an institutional organic entity. And without needed revivals and reformations (plural), eventually there would be no church of the living God.
“Usually wins??” Only as defined by her
Naturally. I do not get your references to some possible misconduct, but the fact remains that Rome views itself as an apostolic, that is one preserving an historical deposit, church.
If she says so. I was referring to her “natural” use of the sword and forgeries to gain or maintain power.
that is called a extrapolation, as what you see is a promise made to an individual, not to posterity [in reference to the promises of the infallible Church and papacy in Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32[
No, the text does not suggest that. First, there is nothing in the text to suggest anything less than a cosmic promise. To offer "the gates/powers of Hell shall not prevail against my Church" or "thy brethren will be sifted like wheat but I pray to thee to confirm them" in the context of a divine revelation asserted to be given to Peter and the solemnity of the Last Supper is to severely understate the gospel. Second, the person of Peter is significantly undermined in those very passage: Peter is one who will deny Christ, and one who tries to persuade Jesus to abandon His mission.
And what is not promised in formulaic assured infallibility. God preserves His church as He preserved a remnant of true Israel, using men and leaders, and in the NT church stones like Peter who also effectually confess Christ but who did not possess assured infallibility, who thus become autocratic demi-gods.
Christ being it [the Rock]
That is exactly the point. Were Christ not typified by the rock, we might say that it is one of forms of praise, like calling John an dJames the sons of Thunder. But here we have a real delegation of authority, and it is the only context in which "feed my sheep" makes sense.
The delegation and “leader among brethren” status of Peter is not what is in dispute, but its perpetuation what Rome imputes to that leadership.
when James the brother of John died (Mt. 10:2; Acts 12:2) no successor is mentioned, nor a provision made for selecting one as was made for Judas. It is incongruous that the Holy Spirit of truth would not have made that manifest if it were to be so, while the criteria for ordaining elders/bishops (same office, and not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) was faith and character, (1Tim. 3:1-7) which would exclude many papal successors from even being church members. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
St. James' martyrdom was in the context of a Church fully functioning. For example, St. Paul -- not a natural apostle -- was already active as an equeal to the apostles bishop of the Church. The Church was no longer a Hebrew institution. That must mark the time when the pivot from the Church of the Twelve to the Catholic Church of very many was accomplished.
Which does not solves the problem. If apostolic succession will use Acts 1 as a precedent then it needs to maintain 12 with the same level of credibility, chosen by lot, while the absence for a successor for James and no manifest provision being made for Peter, unlike that for Moses in the Old Testament, serves as a precedent for a local bishops in corporate leadership after the death of the apostles. Or having God sovereignly raise up a Paul, with like qualities and attendant supernatural attestation. (Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)
The very idea that preservation of the faith requires [a magisterium] is a contradiction
Where in the scripture do we see it? I see where it is scriptural: "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts Of Apostles 20:28).
Good verse corresponding to corporate leadership, though the word for rule/tend can also be rendered “feed” (Jn. 21:16; 1Pt. 5:2; Rev. 7:17) , but where do you simply see magisterium in my sentence and why did you replace “AIM” with magisterium? That changes the whole point. You must know by now that SS affirms the church magisterium, and the assuredly infallible status is the issue.
you won't get far in any most evangelical denominations if you disagree with fundamentals either, and historically those who have were marked as heretics
The Catholic Church allows a great lenience in interpreting of the scripture while she is quite specific as to what doctrines are Catholic. That is consistent with the Catholic method whereby it is the Church rather than the scripture which is the rule of faith.
And thus the church is autocratic, beyond reproof when she says something that she says is so.
The fault that I see here is not in the Catholics avoiding to fix an interpretation to the scripture we already hold inerrant, but with the Protestants who would allow notions that cannot at the same time be true, like whether or not there is a free will, -- to co-exist.
And which does not equate with a dead gospel, as with the latter repentance is granted, faith is gifted and souls are persuaded, though they exercise a degree of free will, and as sinners helpless to gain justification by works, they rest on Christ for salvation and respond to Him as Lord. In contrast, institutional religion is full of multitudes whose hope of eternal life is based upon them being a good person, without ever having made a conscious decision for Christ and realizing regeneration. I have talked to multitudes of them over the past 30 years, and its about how good they are and or their church affiliation.
disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses, is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture
Certainly, if you are of the opinion that the Old Testament iterprets itself, the you should keep kosher and reject Acts 15 which contravened the Mosaic law. But if you consider Christianity to be true religion, then i=you have to understand that the law of Moses was replaced in Christianity by law of grace.
You misunderstood the argument (below), which contextually was not about what Acts decreed, but Rome's claim to be as infallible as they were, while they practice “allegorizing historical accounts, or counting them as fables, which approved Roman scholars do, and disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses [holding to the Documentary Hypothesis theory], is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture.”
seeking to be like a Berean and continue to use their means
.. is a good thing and I am convinced that anyone who honestly examines the Holy Scripture wil end up if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox.
You may be convinced, including that study likely may lead to rejection of the Roman Catholic papacy, but the evidence among those who esteem Scripture and do not implicit trust men indicates they leave for green pastures. One must not simply look at official doctrines, but what they result in as regards faith among those within it as compared with the Scriptures.
EENS is yet disputed among Roman Catholics and Vatican Two is in contrast to the most historical understand of it, but Rome lost her secular teeth needed to carry out her animosity against men like Huss, Tyndale, etc.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is understood as it always has been, that when an dif one is saved, he is saved as a Roman Catholic.
No. The context was unity of doctrine, with the point is that it is not universally understood the same way, at least since Vatican Two.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). ... Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."”
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."
But i think the likes of Boniface 8 would cringe to read words such as in LUMEN GENTIUM: “The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood...” (15)
And then you have the closest degree of fellowship found between Roman Catholic charismatics and Pentecostals, which in modern times began within Catholics in America after influence from the latter, but which does not affirm all that may accompany either.
We don't know if Hus or Tyndale were saved. Our best effort was to ensure their salvation. If they were, they were Catholic when they died. It si not too late by the way, to pray for Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Bruno, or any other heretic.
Thus you sanction their deaths, by the sword of men no less, and damn them if they were not Roman Catholic, which is an abomination. (Prv. 17:15) Those are effectively your words, while today they likely would be “separated brethren.” And while the Jewish Scriptures nor the New Testament sanction no prayers for the dead, though the apocryphal 2 Maccabees did so for evident idolaters, seeing as real heretics even by Rome's standards are buried by her daily, then they had better see to their own house first.
Annalex: We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46).
Daniel: And rightly so, as how can faith or love be judged except by what it does?
Indeed. So works are how we are justified.
You either cannot comprehend or refuse to that the cause of works can justify one as a believer while works are shown to be a basis for judgment, because its effects manifest that he is. Jesus was God, but He said to believe Him due to His very works sake. (Jn. 4:11)
Mormons say the like
I did not know that the Mormons claimed to have the sacraments, but if they do, it should not be our criterion what they mistakenly think of themselves.
Meaning leaving their church means losing their soul, as if the body of Christ was restricted to them, a restriction Rome at least now does not make but you do. While assuming the elect would died within the visible church, Augustine stated, “Just as many sheep wander without, so many wolves lurk treacherously within.” (B.6.1.1)
What typical passes for religion in Rome is perfunctory professions
No. Professions are means to an end, but they are not "religion". It is, in fact the cornerstone Protestnat error to think that confessional faith is alone salvific. A profession of faith that is deeply held, and a profession of faith that is "perfunctory" are equally irrelevant to salvation.
Again, while that may be technically accurate, it neither has conversion being alone as apart from conviction and the means of it, which includes the working of men, nor that a faith that was of a character of would no follow Christ was salvific. “Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification, that of God-given faith versus works, though they are basically inseparable.
The saving faith does the works. The perfunctory faith feels the feel.
The former is true, but the latter is mere form.
Annalex I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
Daniel You made the assertion, now you must prove it.
Prove it how? I stated, there is no X. Prove to me by showing X.
The statement was not that there is a verse countering Rome that you would allow as valid, but that you must prove your statement that “The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.” And as said, “They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.”
Catholics last in Bible reading, with one study (Rasmussen) also showing 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible (apart from church)
Naturally. It is not a good thing, but it shows that Bible reading in itself is not anything salvific.
So one could not read Peter's sermon Acts 10:36-43 and be saved? “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15)
“Any way you cut it, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.”
It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass. The scripture read at Mass is essential scripture and it combines the Old and the New Testaments together so that a deeper understanding is acheived. I don't know what "functional knowldege" is; I agree that biblical apologetics among the Catholics is poor.
What a contrast to the book of Acts where souls were first saved and then they continued in the word, and the services were not that of watching a type of play every week but ranged from highly participatory meeting (1Cor. 14) to preaching service (Acts 20:7ff) to a agape feast, with the latter being about as close as you will get, but its not a mass, neither were the elders part of a separate class of priests offering up expiatory sacrifices.
the Lord and His disciples were good at proving their claims by Scripture.
It is something the Catholics need to get better at.
So they can convince souls not to look to Scripture to ascertain truth by, unlike what the Bible examples and commends.
the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and Assumption, praying to the departed, mandated Priestly celibacy (except some converts), more resembles the work of cults. That is because these do not depend upon Biblical warrant,
No, they do not. so why do you mentin them?
Because most RCAs contend as if they did.
I diod not say, "everything the Church teaches in in the Bible". I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?
And the certainty of this claim, rests upon her claim to be infallible.
Rome's claim to authority rests upon self-proclamation of her supreme authority, not Biblical manifestation of the truth.
It rests on the authority you can ascertain from the Bible, such as the authority to "bind and loose" (Mt 16-18). It also rests on the continuing existence of the same church through 2 thousand years. Howeverm, no one is claiming that no interpretation of the Bible can be found that is not in a seeming contradiction to the Church. It is just not a real contradiction.
No, as the condemnation of PI and the requirement for the AIM is based upon the premise that the laity cannot derive surety of doctrine from Scripture. If order to do so one must submit to the AIM, which again, infallibly interprets Scripture and history as rendering her assuredly infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula.
your judgment must be dismissed as you cannot concede that anything in opposition to Rome's official teaching can be true
I do say that. But you are still at liberty to offer your opposition, and if I do not have a reasonable argument for Rome, the reader will see that. so far, I did not see anythign that would objectively be a challenge to Rome;
Thank you for your honest admission, and readers can see your commitment, and this extended argument shows mine as well, but also that if anyone is trying to be objective i think it is I.
I have seem agreement on the essential point, that works of charity and faith are necessary. I also have seen much backpedaling form that biblical fact.
From the beginning you have seen affirmation that works of charity and faith are necessary, in contrast to a largely straw version of historic Protestantism, with the “fide” aspect of “sola” being restricted to what actually procures justification.
I really would like to get that part of the argument done with, so if you have an rgument on how Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach justification by works of charity, I would like to pursue that.
That should be put to rest, as well as the latter, which is a matter of hermeneutics, and of your seeing a description of Jesus blessing souls because they had a kind of faith that works by love as making that the precise means of appropriating justification, which Paul does for faith, clearly excluding works as meriting it. We can argue that faith and works are are so inseparable that the former speaks of the other, and so an event in which faith is manifest can be seen as justifying one, but a distinction is made, with justifying faith in the heart causing the works which confirm one is saved.
We should both be able to agree that God can justify and purify hearts by faith before they were baptized (Acts 15:8,9) as baptism by desire allows. The importance again is of a soul having a poor and contrite heart that sees he is damnable and destitute of any way to escape Hell or gain Heaven except by casting all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, and does so, trusting and thus calling upon the risen Lord to save him by His blood and righteous, and which is a type of God-given faith that is confessed, expressed in baptism (normatively) and works of faith, led by the Spirit. And that saving faith is one that continues in the faith, repenting when convicted of not doing so, which i have many times defined it as.