“Besides getting upset, do you intend to actually answer my questions or not?”
1) I’m not upset. I expect Protestant anti-Catholics to be hypocrites. 2) I see no reason to define “merit” if you won’t define “earn”.
“Or, is the problem that you don’t understand it yourself?”
Understanding it or not understanding it can’t stop me from posting an definition from the CCC or another important published work. I think the real question is: Why do YOU seem so upset? And why are you not defining “earn”?
“Obviously everyone with a brain defines merits and works as meaning the same exact thing.”
REALLY? So, you actually would define an action (which you seem to be saying - erroneously - is exclusively done on the part of the human person) to be the same thing as what God gives the person who you say committed the action? That would be like saying - and I’ll use the erroneous Protestant anti-Catholic outlook here that you’re embracing - if a man wins a race at the Olympics that running of the race is actually the exact same thing as the gold medal he receives later on the awards stand. That’s an irrational view. They are not the same thing.
“Obviously grace can never be earned by anything, and can only be given gratuitously to someone who does not deserve it in any way.”
And that is exactly what I have said. God decides who merits and who doesn’t. Grace is ALWAYS A GIFT. Merit is not earning.
“Do you even understand what this actually means? It’s basically like you’re saying, “God will decide who is worthy to be saved, therefore it is not by our worthiness.””
Yes, I understand it very well. That’s exactly why I said: “According to God DECIDING who merits and who doesn’t. Again, that’s not “earning”.”
“Notice that you don’t actually explain “how they are different,””
No, I said: “They are different in time, effect, and relationship.” Do you even read the posts?
“...and now you are lapsing back to the obvious, that you say that it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power, but man who meets God in the middle, and is therefore earning the grace of salvation as a reward for his obedience.”
That is NOT what I said at all. It is amazing to me how you are twisting my words and claiming I said something I never said. I never said, “it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power”. I am saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE. What you’re claiming is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of everything I have EVER posted on this topic! Why is it that Protestant anti-Catholics so often resort to making things up out of thin air???
“So, can you please tell me exactly “how” they are different?”
If you’re going to completely make up things I never, EVER, said why would it matter what I say to you? Won’t you just make up whatever you want? If I give you an answer you don’t like, won’t you just create a sentence or two I never said and claim I said them? Seriously, do you not see why that is wrong?
“So now you’re getting your theology from someone who isn’t even a Catholic?”
No, I used something he commented upon to make a point. How is that wrong?
“And what do you even MEAN by it?”
It was clear. If it isn’t to you, then I suggest the problem lies with you.
“You should spend more time answering my questions instead of saying random stuff about screwtape.”
No. Paraphrasing CS Lewis is much better than answering your questions since CS Lewis isn’t around to make things up and claim I said them when I never did. If you can’t see why you should define “earn”, and if you will just make up things I have never claimed in my entire life then why should I spend any time answering your questions?
“1) I’m not upset. I expect Protestant anti-Catholics to be hypocrites. 2) I see no reason to define “merit” if you won’t define “earn”.”
Okay, to “earn” something is to receive something as a reward for one’s merits.
“Understanding it or not understanding it can’t stop me from posting an definition from the CCC or another important published work. “
Okay, please provide the CCC definition for a “merit” that is not, in fact, meritorious.
“REALLY? So, you actually would define an action (which you seem to be saying - erroneously - is exclusively done on the part of the human person) to be the same thing as what God gives the person who you say committed the action? That would be like saying - and I’ll use the erroneous Protestant anti-Catholic outlook here that you’re embracing - if a man wins a race at the Olympics that running of the race is actually the exact same thing as the gold medal he receives later on the awards stand. That’s an irrational view. They are not the same thing.”
I’m not quite sure what it is you’re trying to argue is “irrational.” From the theological perspective, “running” for the prize is just as much a merit as winning the race for the prize, since it shows your obedience and willingness to chase after the prize, and is boast worthy, since not everyone does that. And, presumably, from the Papist perspective, it is God who will walk you across the finish line, provided you run half way and earn his help. If you are saying that your own argument is irrational, then I suppose you would be correct. It also isn’t the scriptural view:
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
If the mercy of God cannot make your will righteous, and preserve you to your death, then it is the obedience of man that is willingly cooperating with God. If you are willingly cooperating with God with your faithfulness and obedience, and this same faithfulness and obedience is not created in you by God alone, then your salvation is a reward for that cooperation, since not everyone cooperates, only some people, and the mercy of God, by itself, cannot make your will righteous, give to you faith, or keep you from falling away. Therefore grace, as the catechism suggests, is given as a reward for your continual obedience and works done after the initial grace that is not merited.
“Yes, I understand it very well.”
I don’t think you do, because instead of responding to what I said, you basically just confirmed it. So you admit that what you’re saying is identical to: “God chooses who it is that is worthy enough to be saved. Therefore, our worthiness does not earn salvation.” It’s a completely absurd statement, of course.
“No, I said: “They are different in time, effect, and relationship.” Do you even read the posts?”
At this point you’re literally just repeating yourself. How does saying “they are different in time, effect, and relationship” answer the question “how are they different in time, effect and relationship?”
If one of them cannot be merited, but the other one is merited, what, actually, is the difference, if the word “merit” isn’t actually something that is due a reward?
“That is NOT what I said at all. It is amazing to me how you are twisting my words and claiming I said something I never said. I never said, “it is not God who makes us righteous through his infallible power”. I am saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE. What you’re claiming is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of everything I have EVER posted on this topic! Why is it that Protestant anti-Catholics so often resort to making things up out of thin air???”
I suspect this is what cognitive dissonance looks like. If God is making us righteous through His infallible power, what is it that man can possibly add to that work of God? If God’s power is not sufficient to make a man righteous by itself, but rather a man must cooperate with that power in order to make it effectual, then God’s power is not strong enough to do it by itself.
But if you hold to my position, that the power of God is powerful enough to both make the will of man righteous, and preserve him to everlasting life, it does not follow that anyone is receiving a reward for merits. Since, merits are only given as a result of a salvation already secured, and which have no bearing whatsoever on that salvation. It is only an evidence that that salvation, or work of God, exists within the individual predestinated to eternal life before the world began. In other words, there is nothing left to receive as a reward for one’s merits, because it is by God’s grace that we produce any works at all. Therefore salvation is by the grace of God only, for the purpose of creating faith and works in an individual who is already washed totally clean by the blood of Christ.
Though our works are not perfect, as even Paul complained of constant sins within his body. But any sense of earning salvation, or of lacking anything, and having to go through purgatory, or possessing any native goodness in us, or any hope in earning salvation by our works, is done away completely, since we can trust completely in the work of God.
“No. Paraphrasing CS Lewis is much better than answering your questions since CS Lewis isn’t around to make things up and claim I said them when I never did. If you can’t see why you should define “earn”, and if you will just make up things I have never claimed in my entire life then why should I spend any time answering your questions?”
I have a sense that you’re going a little crazy at this point. I like it!