Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

CCDictionary ^ | 04-16-14 | from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

[metmom]

Did St. Paul write “you are saved by faith alone” anywhere in these quotes?

Spiritual blindness is a frightful thing.

You would have your answer if you had read them.

But for your sake and the lurkers, again.....

Ephesians 2:1-10And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Romans 3:20-30 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Romans 4:1-25 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

[metmom]

Or does St. Paul express proper Catholic doctrine?

Paul doesn't express any Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine came centuries after Paul and does no longer resemble what he taught.

[annalex]

I am looking for honesty. If the Bible says something I want the self-professed readers of the Bible to acknowledge what it says. You give a good example how instead you argue with the Bible by offering fantastical explanations of it.

Jesus said MUCH more than "this is my body"

Did He, perhaps, say someplace else "Eh, wait. It is not my body after all. Just kidding"?

spelling out their developed doctrine over those words until well over a THOUSAND years after the last of the Apostles all died

I cited Sts Ireneaus, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr vehemently defending the doctrine of Real Presence (i.e. it is His body) on this thread. They are Catholic authorities of the 2 Century. Another reason to really despise the Protestant theorizers is their inability to face historical facts.

"not by faith alone are ye saved" You cannot find THAT passage anywhere in Scripture

That's a s good one.

ορατε τοινυν οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? (Douay)

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (KJV)

My quote was from memory. Did I not remember it right?

God insists that bishops or overseers and elders shepherd and feed God's flock

Right. Now you paraphrase. You paraphrase is correct. They shepherd the Church and they feed it. Here's the original:

προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος (Acts 20:28)

I italicized the "bishop rule" part. "Episcop", or similar is the word for "bishop" in most languages; in fact, "bishop" derives from it also. Yes, it means "overseer".

"ποιμαινω" is indeed a complex meaning (Liddell-Scott) matching both "govern", "guard" and "tend" in application to sheep. It is, in other words, the work of a shepherd. Can you think of a better metaphor for authority than what a shepherd has over the sheep? So now please find where the scripture says something about Bible alone ruling the Church.

[annalex]

So where does St. Paul say “justification is by faith alone”? What you posted is thoroughly Catholic.

[boatbums]

Did St. Paul write “you are saved by faith alone” anywhere in these quotes? Or does St. Paul express proper Catholic doctrine? It is a good idea to know something about the matter which you intend to discuss. Otherwise you reinforce my opinion that Protestants figured out how they can ignore half the Bible by profusely citing another half, which does not say anything in support of their theological fantasies.

It not only would be a good idea for to know something about the matter you intend to discuss, but also, apparently, what you actually have already said. You stated:

Yeah, yeah. Fantasize all you want. Al I need to do is to read "not by faith alone are ye saved" and no matter what else we can find in the Bible about faith, it becomes clear that whoever defends their fundamental doctrine of salvation by faith alone is a charlatan who wants to re-write the Bible.

You were shown that this is certainly NOT something you have read nor is it ALL you need to read to understand such an important doctrine of Soteriology. You pick out a phrase, based on your own faulty memory and try to dispute ALL the other verses that show your faulty phrase to NOT be what you claim it is. "Protestants", contrary to your habitually false inclinations, don't HAVE to ignore "half" of Scripture because it only reinforces what the Reformation, and true believers, have ALWAYS asserted. I don't disagree that there are some confessions that hold on to the label of "Protestant", who haven't held onto the tenets of genuine Christianity, but, like Catholicism, they do not represent it anymore.

Those "theological fantasies" can be found in the volumes of Roman Catholic dogmas that really DO ignore Scripture in order to profess the accursed gospel of works for salvation as well as other novel doctrines that were unheard of in Scripture. But, like I already said, you do so at your own peril and have NO effect on those hearts to whom the Holy Spirit has illuminated the truth. As long as someone is still breathing, there will always be hope that they can join them.

[metmom]

So where does St. Paul say “justification is by faith alone”? What you posted is thoroughly Catholic.

No, it's not.

The problem with people who don't want to follow Scripture is that they make demands of how they think things should be worded to say what they think should be said, and if it isn't translated exactly the way the demand, they use it as proof that it doesn't say what it says.

What a fail.....

It's clear there's nothing left in your arsenal.

[boatbums]

Did St. Paul write “you are saved by faith alone” anywhere in these quotes? Or does St. Paul express proper Catholic doctrine?

You used your memory to state Scripture said something it did not. Now you say you want Scripture to prove to you that salvation is by faith alone anywhere. I'll bite:

you have been saved through faith (Eph. 2:8)

Your faith has saved you (Luke 7:50)

those who have faith and are saved (Heb. 10:39)

you can be saved through faith in Christ Jesus (II Tim. 2:15)

your faith has saved you (Luke 18:42)

thy faith hath saved thee (Matt. 9:22)

you profess your faith and are saved (Rom. 10:10)

he hath faith to be saved (Acts 14:9)

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31)

being now justified by his blood, we will be saved (Rom. 5:9)

For, "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 10:13)

by grace you have been saved (Eph. 2:5)

who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works (II Tim. 1:9)

saved through faith in Christ Jesus (II Tim. 3:15)

There certainly are many more in addition to those that speak of God's grace - which is another discussion. Now, maybe you can post all the verses that say you are saved by works?

[boatbums]

So where does St. Paul say “justification is by faith alone”? What you posted is thoroughly Catholic.

Here is but one of MANY:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:21-28)

It's pretty clear that it is by the grace of God that we are justified/saved/made righteous and that this justification is a GIFT that we receive by faith. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught this but it changed over time. Once this truth sinks into ones hearts and we believe God, salvation is ours - because God loves us.

[annalex]

I stand by my post with one correction, for the biblically illiterates among us:

Yeah, yeah. Fantasize all you want. Al I need to do is to read "not by faith alone are ye saved" (compare James 2:24) and no matter what else we can find in the Bible about faith, it becomes clear that whoever defends their fundamental doctrine of salvation by faith alone is a charlatan who wants to re-write the Bible.

[annalex]

I stand by my earlier post: there is nothing in what St. Paul ever wrote that is not Catholic doctrine.

[annalex]

These verses indicate that faith plays a great role in salvation, but they do not say that nothing was needed to be saved other than faith alone. For example, Eph. 2:8 goes on to say that good works are also something we should do, in verse 10. That is because James 2:24 explains that works of love and self-denial are also necessary.

[annalex]

Thoroughly Catholic, and of course it does not teach salvation by faith alone. It makes several points: that righteousness originates with faith; that justification is by grace alone; that “works of the law”, e.g. works done under legal obligation, for a temporal reward, due to the requirements of Jewish faith — do not save. St. Paul never says that justification is by faith apart from ANY works.

[boatbums]

Thoroughly Catholic, and of course it does not teach salvation by faith alone. It makes several points: that righteousness originates with faith; that justification is by grace alone; that “works of the law”, e.g. works done under legal obligation, for a temporal reward, due to the requirements of Jewish faith — do not save.

Hey...you started this with your selective use of words to imply Scripture says works save us. Now you want to pontificate and define the clear words of Scripture??? A bit duplicitous wouldn't you say?

St. Paul never says that justification is by faith apart from ANY works.

You just don't know when to quit, do you?

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. (Romans 4:5-7)

[Springfield Reformer]

So now please find where the scripture says something about Bible alone ruling the Church.

This is a straw man argument. No one on either side of this debate contends there is no divinely appointed human authority exercised in the churches. We do disagree in that we contend the authoritarian monarchy centered in Rome, complete with an intermediate echelon of priests exerting sacerdotal power over the laity, has no basis in Scripture, at least if you think Peter's view matters:

1Peter 5:1-4 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Here Peter sweetly echoes the command Jesus gave him to feed His sheep. But notice what I have bolded. Peter accounted Himself an elder. Why did he not assert the status of bishop? Then a few words later notice that he is telling the same elders of verse 1 they are to take *oversight* of the flock, επισκοπουντες, the verbal form of episkopos, which as a noun some prefer to translate "bishop," but which is closer to it's native meaning simply as "overseer."

So the presbyters and the overseers are not rigidly separate and distinct roles, at least not here. And no one argues they exercise authority. But what sort of authority, and what relationship does such authority have to the enscripturated word of God?

Those are fair questions to ask, because there is a heavenly reward for good shepherding and almost every elder I know or have ever known was serious about trying to get it right:

1Peter 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Peace,

SR

[annalex]

to imply Scripture says works save us

I did not "imply" anything of the sort. The Bible says that we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). The Protestants say that we are. I agree with the Bible and not with Protestantism. That is all there is to it: faith, indeed, leads men to salvation provided it brings forth good works.

The quote you make from Romans is incomplete without the reference to circumcision in verses 7-10, that is the works that were not necessary for the blessing of Abraham were works of Jewish law. Exactly as the Catholic Church teaches.

[metmom]

Some people would rather hang their hat on one partial verse taken out of context than the whole weight of Scripture.

Paul has said clearly enough that salvation if by grace through faith and NOT of works.

It could not be clearer. Those who do not wish to see it, will not, no matter how it’s phrased. This whole *If it were worded in the Bible MY way, I’d believe it, is pure hogwash.

We’ve provided more than enough Scripture showing that salvation is by grace through faith without works. And the biggest joke is that all that is solid Catholic teaching. That sure explains the meltdown Catholics have over sola Scriptura. /s

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Time to shake the dust off.

[annalex]

Did I mention before I like your posts?

We do disagree in that we contend the authoritarian monarchy centered in Rome, complete with an intermediate echelon of priests exerting sacerdotal power over the laity

If every Christian from the Reformer tradition, instead of arguing some off-the-cliff Sola Scriptura theology raised questions about whether the modern "authoritarian monarchy" is identical to the papacy of Peter and the first popes, I would have no quarrel with the argument. It is entirely legitimate to examine the evidence of scripture and the historical evidence of the early Church to see what were the earthly mechanisms of authority and how the pope, bishops and priesthood fit into it. 1 Peter 5 is an excellent insight into the question.

One note on the translation. The original employs not "elder", -- which can mean anything, really, -- but presbyter, "πρεσβυτερος", the word which English equivalent is "Christian priest". Unfortunately in English there is no separate word for "Pagan priest". "πρεσβυτερος", however, is used in the New Testament to indicate Christian men of sacerdotal authority. Translating, like Douay, "ancients" or as KJV "elders" somewhat obscures the nature of the authority that is not from old age but rather is "grace that is in thee [Timothy], which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." (1 Timothy 4:14).

With this in mind, let us look at the passage. Peter here addresses πρεσβυτερους and points out that he, Peter is a "συμπρεσβυτερος", -- a fellow priest. As a Catholic I do not find it in any way surprising. whether one is a pope, a bishop or a parish priest in some backwater town, the decisive, indelible mark on his soul is priesthood. Papacy is a function, priesthood is the essence. While I recognize the special authority of Pope Francis, he is to me foremostly a priest, from whose hands I eat the Holy Eucharist. To describe himself as bishop would not be inaccurate, but it would insert a distinction between the speaker and the audience where Peter wants to emphasize unity. He does mention one distinction of his: "συμπρεσβυτερος και μαρτυς των του χριστου παθηματων", "fellow priest and witness of the Christ's Passion". That, I think, is mentioned in order to encourage the young priests who do not belong to the generation of Apostles to still carry on the mark of priesthood same as is on Peter.

This being said, there is no argument that bishops and priests were not strictly separated in the Early Church. That is because theologically, -- I repeat myself -- priesthood is significant as priest is the stand-in for Christ. Bishop is a priest who has extra administrative duty. Pope is a priest who administers bishops. In the Early Church there was probably one Christian Church per town (and probably not a distinct building, but rather a known community that met in peoples' homes) so the priest was at the same time bishop for that town.

But neither is this passage teaching absence of priestly authority. You chose not to follow with the next verse, but the passage actually concludes with a call to obedience to the Church in humility:

In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients [υποταγητε πρεσβυτεροις]. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.

Now let's go back to that "authoritarian monarchy". That the pope is a monarch is true; and he is recognized as one by other heads of state. "Authoritarian", however, means that he can order people around at will. That is not the case with most monarchs (American allergy to monarchism notwithstanding) and it is certainly not the case with papacy. The pope is constrained by the 2 thousand years of Catholic tradition that leaves him very little theological room for innovation. Further, the Church is Catholic: that means, it moves as a single collegiate body. The pope, for example, cannot tell a bishop what to do; he can engineer his retirement, but he cannot not dictate to him. Conservative Catholics in the US, for example, sorely wish our popes were more authoritarian in their dealings with the liberal bishops and the liberal Catholic colleges such as Notre Dame. Likewise, the liberal Catholics would wish the pope to be able to proclaim female priesthood, or access to communion after remarriage. The pope can't do that either. Papacy is a rigid institution, and I am convinced that is how God wants it. Institutional rigidity is the very opposite of authoritarianism.

[boatbums]

I did not "imply" anything of the sort. The Bible says that we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). The Protestants say that we are. I agree with the Bible and not with Protestantism. That is all there is to it: faith, indeed, leads men to salvation provided it brings forth good works.

Except James 2:24 DOES NOT SAY "we are not saved by faith alone", so why do you keep repeating it? You want to criticize "Protestants" for not agreeing with all of the Bible yet you paraphrase ONE passage that still won't prove what you expect all the rest of the passages do! Read the context of who James is speaking to and what he is actually saying rather than the accursed perversion that nullifies the grace of God. He says, "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone". It is before others that the faith we profess is justified by how we act - but NOT before God. HE sees the heart and knows if the profession of faith AND the deeds that accompany it are GENUINE - because we ALL know people who fake it. This IS the only way that verse works with all the rest of Scripture on the subject of salvation.

The quote you make from Romans is incomplete without the reference to circumcision in verses 7-10, that is the works that were not necessary for the blessing of Abraham were works of Jewish law. Exactly as the Catholic Church teaches.

Except Abraham was justified by faith HUNDREDS of years before there was a Law of Moses. I thought you knew this? And you still cannot explain the verse in Titus 3:5, He saved us-- not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy". Until the Catholic Church comes back to the pure Gospel of the grace of God that I really do think they once believed, they will continue to preach an accursed gospel and face the judgment of God.

[Springfield Reformer]

If every Christian from the Reformer tradition, instead of arguing some off-the-cliff Sola Scriptura theology raised questions about whether the modern "authoritarian monarchy" is identical to the papacy of Peter and the first popes, I would have no quarrel with the argument.

Which is all very nice, but if you read the rest of my sentence you see that the root of my objection is that the sacerdotal system "has no basis in Scripture." So while I always appreciate a kind word (and I never turn down free donuts at work either), I think in the end you will find me as much an "off-the-cliff Sola Scriptura" guy as any of my evangelical brothers and sisters here.

But "Sola Scriptura," like so many other things we evangelicals believe, has seldom if ever been accurately represented by our opposition. It was never meant to imply that the Bible is the only useful source of information in studying a theological problem. Language, reason, history, all have their place in such studies.

But at the end of the day, in sorting through conflicting data, the mind of the student must declare a winner and go with that. Therefore if the Bible says there were Hittites and 19th Century archaeology says there weren't, the believer goes with the Bible, and come the 20th Century they will be vindicated.

So the Protestant mindset is not to reject all knowledge outside Scripture. It is to give Scripture preeminence in deciding what is true. If Scripture actually taught, in plain and unequivocal language, that a ministerial priestly class was necessary for the administration of the Eucharist, I for one would not be sitting up late like this arguing the point with you.

But Scripture teaches no such thing. The etymology of πρεσβυτερους strongly suggests “elder” is the more illuminating translation. See Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2386306&redirect=true

Note that Liddell & Scott build their case from established classical Greek usage. For just one of many examples, in Euripides, when Menelaus says, “Hail, old man, rival of Zeus for a bride!,” he is using the same word. That’s how lexical values are determined, broad surveys of common usage, both within and without the document to be translated.

It is true there is a relationship between “presbuteros” and “priest,” but not in Greek. “Priest” is a shortened form of “presbuteros,” and was avoided in later English translations because its meaning had evolved away from the original simplicity of the Greek to mean something quite different than what is found in the Apostolic writings.

BTW, this is not unusual, but a regular phenomenon in language, and it is the real reason translations must be refreshed from time to time. Words shift in their meaning over time. One of my favorite examples is “Goodbye.” Now, any atheist can say “goodbye,” and all he means is “I’m leaving now.” But “goodbye” is a contraction of “God bless you.” So would we say in translating they are the same, that the atheist was really invoking the blessing of God? Of course not.

Which is why “elder” really is the better choice for English readers, because while it is indeed associated with the exercise of authority, it also conveys wisdom, maturity, purity of motive, etc., without any of the misleading baggage associated with the modern English sense of "priest."

But neither is this passage teaching absence of priestly authority.

And again I would remind you that is not the key to the conflict between us. We do not deny the existence of human authority within the churches as God certainly has given gifts by His Holy Spirit for just that purpose:

1Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The word κυβερνησεις (“governments/administrations”) does appear in the list, so we do have an obligation to be responsive to those whom God has so gifted. But notice where they are in the list. They are almost last. Only tongues come in lower. The high ranking gifts are all those who bring the message of the Gospel.

Anyway, past my bedtime. The point is, in the New Testament church there is a complete lack of individuals acting as sacramental go-betweens, no stated reliance on priests performing the miracle of transubstantiation, no demonstration of penance as modernly practiced, etc.

In other words, the true interdependency of the body of Christ is not based on mediatorial priesthood, but the diversity of divine gifts given to the entire body. If the apostles had wished to teach a sacramental intermediating priest class, there was a word for that, "hieros", for which there was a handy model in the Old Covenant priesthood.

Yet that term is never applied to the plurality of elders in any given Christian congregation (nor, BTW, is there any suggestion of a single bishop per city-wide congregation). If there was supposed to be a Christian continuation of the priestly office instituted under Moses, complete with a power for routine Eucharistic miracles upon which the laity were absolutely dependent for spiritual life, it is stunning that no such institution is recorded in the New Testament. God was very clear about it in Moses.

But the truth is, it doesn’t appear because Jesus’ sacrifice renders it unnecessary. He is the last and only Priest of the Christian. We have teachers and administrators and helpers aplenty. But Jesus has worked all the priests offering sacrifice out of a job. It’s over. They can go home now:

Heb 10:15-23 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR HEARTS, AND IN THEIR MINDS I WILL WRITE THEM," then He adds, "THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

Peace,

SR

[annalex]

James 2:24 DOES NOT SAY "we are not saved by faith alone"

Sure it does, and in context, mentioning several examples of faith accompanied by good works.

He says, "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone"

There is no "is considered" there, that is some mickey mouse translation of yours.

ορατε τοινυν οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον (James 2:24)
Word by word:
you-see then that by works is-justified man and not by faith alone

Except Abraham was justified by faith HUNDREDS of years before there was a Law of Moses

That is St. Paul's point. What was Abraham's faith? it was all works: crossed the desert, brought Isaac to sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:8, 17).

you still cannot explain the verse in Titus 3:5

What is there to "explain"? Just read what is written:

[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; [6] Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: [7] That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting. [8] It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. (Titus 3)