Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Marybeloved]

In Hebrew, A ‘Father’ is the Father not only of his sons, but also of his grandchildren and great grandchildren etc. That is why the Jews refer to Abraham as Father Abraham.

The same is true for Mothers.

But we Italians do not do that. We have a father, a grandfather, great grandfather, etc.

But we all have one true Father, He who created us.

When I pray, I will always pray to God the Father, and all my request will be in Jesus name, nor will I be repetitious, because I believe what Jesus and the scriptures say about prayer. I will not judge how others pray, but this is the way I choose to pray and why.

Thank you for giving what PRmerger would call a very Catholic presentation of what Jesus was really teaching when he said “call no man your father”..

God says - Call no man your father
He also inspires St. Paul to say- “Father Abraham” and to write that he himself be called “father”.

God says- Only one is your teacher
He also commands his Apostles to go into the world and “teach” all men to observe all that he (Christ) has commanded them (Apostles). He also inspires Paul to count among the gifts and ministries of the church, the office of “teaching”!

You explain very well that Jews legitimately call Abraham father because a father is not only father to his sons, but to all his descendants as well. You also say the obvious- every human on Earth with a living father or male guardian has called him “Father”. (If that prohibition were literal, I guess we are all in trouble - Because Jesus gives no exceptions there :nope

Now, St. Paul, …No No No…to avoid that messy temptation to deny scripture when it does not fit your theology that I’ve witnessed in others here , Let us say clearly- God the Holy Spirit says, in the letters of St. Paul, that Abraham is father not only to his actual descendants as you explained very well above, but also of his children “in faith”. And St. Paul…No no no, I keep forgetting…God the Holy Spirit** teaches** us that Abraham is the father of all believers through faith! So you’re right, “Father” is a lot more than a biological father- St. Paul is not St. Timothy’s biological father after, all- Only spiritually is he his father . So therefore this apparently absolute prohibition “Call no man your father” refers to something much deeper than assigning the title “father” to other human beings, because God does not contradict himself. This apparently absolute prohibition “only one is your teacher” refers to something much deeper than assigning the title “teacher” to other human beings, because God does not contradict himself.

To Catholics, there’s no paradox- God is telling us to look to him alone as our true and ultimate Father, as Jesus has taught us to call him in prayer- And this the Church does most faithfully. He is telling us to find all teachings and truths in him alone as our ultimate teacher in God The Holy Spirit- Paraclete, who has come down to the Church to **"**bring to her remembrance" all that Christ has done and said, and this the Church does most faithfully, holding only to the Apostolic tradition and scripture and the promises of Christ.

Peace!

 

[gerhardc]

John, (or vice-versa) - wasn’t asking them anything about the rightful interpreter of scripture and the Pharisees and the Jewish leaders certainly didn’t embrace the notion of sola scriptura.

Absolutely agree. That was their problem. They added stuff to the Law of Moses which wasn’t written in it so as to prompt Jesus to say, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.” (Matthew 23:25) Their adding to the Law came on the basis of their interpretation of the Law (Scriptures), which they had studied since childhood. They went forth as the learned ones - the ones who had the authority to interpret Scripture. Yet, because their hearts were ‘not in it’ (meaning, they did not walk in *faith *but in initiative - Refer Romans 10), Jesus could discern that they were in fact “hypocrites”.

The Jewish leaders and Pharisees’s had wandered from what was necessary to be justified (faith - refer Romans 10: “but it is misdirected zeal. For they don’t understand God’s way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God’s way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God.”).

Of course, even if the Pharisees and the Jewish leaders were asking the same question that I am asking, it would still be a valid question. Your thoughts regarding the following:

If you are correct, then you must be deferring either to your own interpretation or to the interpretation of another person or church leadership, to prove that certain teachings of the Catholic church do in fact contradict scripture? After all scripture cannot interpret scripture.

Which one is it gerhardc?

Neither of the two options. The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for the ones who are born again (refer John 3:3) and who have received Him - refer Romans 8:16 - “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God”.. He interprets Scripture for every child of God and shows them what they need to take out of it right then: “the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27). Whether or not all are truly born again and whether or not all actually listen to the Spirit when He interprets is another story.

 

[gerhardc]

He (Christ) cancelled the law as the source of salvation, but he did not make the law void insofar that we aren’t obligated to observe the moral precepts of the law or repent of our personal sins in order to be saved.
The Bible tells it slightly differently: "For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God." (Romans 10:4). Christ did not ***cancel ***the Law - it still stands for those who wish to try and follow it. He ***fulfilled ***it so that those who wish to believe may be united with Christ in faith and, in so doing, fulfil the Law: "As a result (of their faith), all who believe in him are made right with God".
Good Fella;8477131:

The law still serves as a means to be saved.

We see it differently here. From the above, Christ ***fulfilled ***the Law on behalf of all those who believe in Him. To these there is no requirement under the Law: "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

Christ alone has formally saved the world by his death on the cross in view of no preceding merits of ours

(my emphasis),

We all know John 3:16 as the verse concerning God’s love. But is that all it says? No, the operative word in the verse (as is confirmed by John 3:18) is “believe” (the act of walking in faith): “For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.” Everyone who do believe get eternal life. Everyone who **do not believe **get eternal damnation (refer John 3:18). I know that will not go down well with the vast majority of people here.

*James isn’t concerned whether a type of faith can save us (2:14), but whether the faith of Christ can save us without good works done in grace. James is objecting to relying on only faith to be saved. *

We respectfully disagree here. James is saying that true faith delivers good works. False faith does nothing. He does not diminish the need for faith but explains what true faith really is: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” (James 1:22). James is saying, ‘don’t fool yourself. If you are not delivering good works then you don’t have true faith’.

 

[Marybeloved]

Gerhard,

You’re the only sola-scriptura proponent still available at this time. From your post above, you obviously believe that scripture alone is the source of all truth.

Could you tell us how the sola-scriptura doctrine factors the choice of the 27 books by the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries, and the fact that it was then that the New Testament as we know it came to be? Indeed even the Old Testament was codified for the first time (not by Jews) but by the Church at the same time as it exists in the Septuagint, and closed the OT canon. How does this bear with sola-scriptura?

Also can you show the doctrine itself (scripture-alone) in scripture? I also gather from your post above that you believe that the sacred tradition accompanying the interpretation of scripture is “traditions of men”, yet the Gospels themselves bear witness that they are written from Apostolic tradition- How do you reconcile this with the doctrine of scripture-alone?

Amicably, Marybeloved.

 

[Good_Fella]

The Bible tells it slightly differently: "For Christ has already accomplished the purpose for which the law was given. As a result, all who believe in him are made right with God." (Romans 10:4). Christ did not ***cancel ***the Law - it still stands for those who wish to try and follow it. He ***fulfilled ***it so that those who wish to believe may be united with Christ in faith and, in so doing, fulfil the Law: "As a result (of their faith), all who believe in him are made right with God".

I never said Christ cancelled the law, but cancelled it as a source of salvation. To be made right with God before Christ’s death on the cross, one had to obey the law without transgressing any part of it at least once. Paul has this thought in mind in Romans 10:4. Please refrain from replying to my posts if you are going to twist my words. This is dishonest of you. Or at least try to fully understand what I mean to say before replying.

We see it differently here. From the above, Christ ***fulfilled ***the Law on behalf of all those who believe in Him. To these there is no requirement under the Law: "that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

But like you said above, “it still stands for those who wish to follow it.”. This is the spirit of the law - the law of liberty, which I referred to above in my previous post.

We all know John 3:16 as the verse concerning God’s love. But is that all it says? No, the operative word in the verse (as is confirmed by John 3:18) is “believe” (the act of walking in faith): “For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.” Everyone who do believe get eternal life. Everyone who **do not believe **get eternal damnation (refer John 3:18). I know that will not go down well with the vast majority of people here.

Belief alone in Christ doesn’t save.

And this is his commanment, that we should believe in the name of Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath commanded unto us.
*1 John 3, 23 *

We respectfully disagree here. James is saying that true faith delivers good works. False faith does nothing. He does not diminish the need for faith but explains what true faith really is: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” (James 1:22). James is saying, ‘don’t fool yourself. If you are not delivering good works then you don’t have true faith’.

I notice you omitted the rest of this post of mine, for it illustrates how self-defeating your line of reasoning is.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Marybeloved]

Gerhard,

How do these words of St. Paul to the Corinthians fit into your theology of salvation? (1st Letter- 13th Chapter)

*If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. *

***Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

******Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

---

***And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. ***

Peace!

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, the very one I quoted, That is why I quoted that verse about the Bereans. They were very noble for using that approach to test if Paul was telling the truth.

So if we are to follow the example of the Bereans we are to use the Old Testament, and the OT ALONE?

That seems to be what you are saying…

And as a Christian that is a peculiar thing for you to be proclaiming.

 

[gerhardc]

Gerhard,

You’re the only sola-scriptura proponent still available at this time. From your post above, you obviously believe that scripture alone is the source of all truth.

Could you tell us how the sola-scriptura doctrine factors the choice of the 27 books by the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries, and the fact that it was then that the New Testament as we know it came to be? Indeed even the Old Testament was codified for the first time (not by Jews) but by the Church at the same time as it exists in the Septuagint, and closed the OT canon. How does this bear with sola-scriptura?

Also can you show the doctrine itself (scripture-alone) in scripture? I also gather from your post above that you believe that the sacred tradition accompanying the interpretation of scripture is “traditions of men”, yet the Gospels themselves bear witness that they are written from Apostolic tradition- How do you reconcile this with the doctrine of scripture-alone?

Amicably, Marybeloved.

I’ll try and sqeeze in something via my phone and then I need to sign off.

Not sure I understand your questuon Mary. Nonetheless, I believe God, through men, put the Bible together. Whether or not that authenticates the men in question is answered by the questions as to whether or nor Balaam’s donkey was authenticated when he spoke to him. Don’t hear me wrong, I’m not saying that the men who put the Bible together were d
donkeys!
Only that God can get done what needs to get done through anyone. )umbsup:

Remember you quoting previously that Jesus Himself inspired the Apostles’ teachings (as is reflectef in their letters - what we know as the Epistles)? I agree with that. Jesus is God. That makes the Epistles the word of God. The Gospels reflect the words, actions and circumstances concerning Jesus. This too then is the word of God. Revelations 1 states that it too is an instruction from God. Thus, His word. We conclude that the NT is the word of God.

Want to be approved by God? This is what the Bible says how you do it: (2 Timothy 2:15) - “work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.”

What is the truth spoken about in 2 Timothy 2? Jesus says, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Hope that helps.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’ll try and sqeeze in something via my phone and then I need to sign off.

Not sure I understand your questuon Mary. Nonetheless, I believe God, through men, put the Bible together. Whether or not that authenticates the men in question is answered by the questions as to whether or nor Balaam’s donkey was authenticated when he spoke to him. Don’t hear me wrong, I’m not saying that the men who put the Bible together were d
donkeys!
Only that God can get done what needs to get done through anyone. )umbsup:

Remember you quoting previously that Jesus Himself inspired the Apostles’ teachings (as is reflectef in their letters - what we know as the Epistles)? I agree with that. Jesus is God. That makes the Epistles the word of God. The Gospels reflect the words, actions and circumstances concerning Jesus. This too then is the word of God. Revelations 1 states that it too is an instruction from God. Thus, His word. We conclude that the NT is the word of God.

Want to be approved by God? This is what the Bible says how you do it: (2 Timothy 2:15) - “work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.”

What is the truth spoken about in 2 Timothy 2? Jesus says, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Hope that helps.

Yes, my friend. I too believe like you that it’s God who does everything through mortal (very fallible) men- Men like St. Peter who publicly disown their master in his most dire need ! And men like Our Blessed Apostles who take off like the wind when things look bleak. Such is God’s Grace! Our faith here is identical .

But my own question was actually different. You see the question is not- Does/did God inspire scripture- Of course he did! Rather, It is- Did he also inspire the selection of scripture (27 Books) in the New Testament by the Church? None of the scriptures in the New Testament calls itself “scripture” or even introduces itself in a way that definitively settles the question of it’s inspiration- How do you decide which books among the available options are the inspired ones? The Donkey, per your analogy, (the bishops of the time) chose the 27 books which you call the New Testament among others- ***So Do you accept now that the Donkey, being merely a Donkey is incapable of knowing the inspired books from the uninspired ones, and therefore must be guided by God the Holy Spirit in such fundamental decisions? ***

That’s what our faith says. Sinful, even stupid men, being used by God the Holy Spirit to guard the Sacred tradition, including the content of the New Testament and the writings themselves among other sacred treasures of the church, through centuries, and being protected from “messing” that sacred deposit (remember, it’s the donkey we are talking about here- Can’t be too careful)- Infallibility is the name that the Church gives this fundamental protection of God’s treasures from the pope’s and bishops’ messy hands!

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Remember you quoting previously that Jesus Himself inspired the Apostles’ teachings (as is reflectef in their letters - what we know as the Epistles)? I agree with that. Jesus is God. That makes the Epistles the word of God. The Gospels reflect the words, actions and circumstances concerning Jesus. This too then is the word of God. Revelations 1 states that it too is an instruction from God. Thus, His word. We conclude that the NT is the word of God.

This is very good, Gerhard- Except that the four Gospels are not the only ones that spoke about Jesus’ words, deeds and circumstances. There were other epistles that claimed to be from the various Apostles (Some already regarded as scripture by many), to which the Church said- Nope! No, thanks. If you believe that the New testament is properly constituted scripture, you must accept that God guided the Church and rendered that decision infallible- free of error! So we don’t have to wonder: Are all these 27- each and every one of them- scripture? Did we miss one? . That’s all Catholics are saying:shrug:. **In matters of faith and morals, God has always guided all the formal teachings of the Church **and preserved them from error.

Why is this important? Because it means you can trust the Church’s formal teachings and Apostolic Tradition:

1. On The nature of God (Trinity)
2. On The True dual nature and two wills of Our Lord in One Divine Person
3. On the Apostles and Nicene creeds expressing Christian faith
4. On the exact identity and inspiration of the Scriptures
5. On the means of Salvation granted to the church
6. On all matters of faith proclaimed by the Church, including those discussed here about Mary

This is indeed very good news.

Peace!

 

[Telestia]

Great apologetics for Christian origins!. And great apologetics for the absolute reliability of Apostolic tradition from which scripture was written, preserved and decided (declared) Still does not answer the question. Who decided which of all that material constituted the New Testament? Not only those quotes were available, the Didache, the protoevangelium, As you noted, Barnabas, and others were as well- None of them start with a declaration “This is scripture” so who decided that only the 27 in the New Testament are scripture as opposed to the others? And which scripture did you use to test this decision?

Peace!

Christians decided which books would be included. The only questionable book is the Revelation of John. They felt that they should include one of the apocalyptic books, and the one attributed to Peter was more fantastic than John’s Revelation. Revelation won by two votes and became the last and 66th book of the Bible.

What Catholics assume is that the Church was all Catholic until the reformation. Prior to Constantine we have our roots going back to Jesus also. From Constantine to Pope Leo changes began that started a drift way from the plain and sure pure gospel of Jesus Christ. This is my view.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Wow! Now, here at last we have it in plain black and white, no? A sola-scriptura adherent saying that the scripture is wrong, that the Archangel Gabriel is wrong, which actually means that GOD is wrong!!! All because they disagree with his own understanding and interpretation of scripture! But I really cannot say I’m surprised. After all, sola scriptura makes you your own ultimate judge of the truth as per your own private interpretation:shrug:.

Peace!

That’s not what I said Mary You leave out that little big word IF

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
The righteousness of Christ is imparted by the gift of grace through faith in the remission of sins. **If **Mary was concieved without sin and never sinned in her life. She had no need of faith in Christs atoning sacrifice and therefore could not be full of grace as the angel said.

So I guess the question is why do you do that? Why do you leave out the conditional aspect of my statement? Could it be that the statement is totally true IF you leave the IF in place? Mary had no need of Christ’s atoning sacrifice IF she was without sin. And therefore could not have been “full of grace” IF she were sinless.

 

[Marybeloved]

Christians decided which books would be included. The only questionable book is the Revelation of John. They felt that they should include one of the apocalyptic books, and the one attributed to Peter was more fantastic than John’s Revelation. Revelation won by two votes and became the last and 66th book of the Bible.

What Catholics assume is that the Church was all Catholic until the reformation. Prior to Constantine we have our roots going back to Jesus also. From Constantine to Pope Leo changes began that started a drift way from the plain and sure pure gospel of Jesus Christ. This is my view.

So were these “Christians” who chose the books (Actually Bishops in Councils of the Church) infallible in their decision?- That’s the Question.

Explain how “your roots” go back to the Early Church apart from through the Catholic Church and how this answers the question of whether the Bishops were infallible when they chose the scriptures.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Thank goodness these are not verbal discussions! Otherwise, Richard might get away with this:

That’s not what I said Mary You leave out that little big word IF

And this:

So I guess the question is why do you do that? Why do you leave out the conditional aspect of my statement? Could it be that the statement is totally true IF you leave the IF in place? Mary had no need of Christ’s atoning sacrifice IF she was without sin. And therefore could not have been “full of grace” IF she were sinless.

This is actually my exact quotation in post #415

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The righteousness of Christ is imparted by the gift of grace through faith in the remission of sins. If Mary was concieved without sin and never sinned in her life. She had no need of faith in Christs atoning sacrifice and therefore could not be full of grace as the angel said.

So please stop with the cat-wheels, Richard.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

So I guess the question is why do you do that? Why do you leave out the conditional aspect of my statement? Could it be that the statement is totally true IF you leave the IF in place? Mary had no need of Christ’s atoning sacrifice IF she was without sin. And therefore could not have been “full of grace” IF she were sinless.

This wrong reasoning was already addressed in post no. #310. I reproduce it here:

Also no use in insisting on the phrase “from sins”, “from sins” repeatedly- If there was a ditch in a path, both of us head to it from opposite directions. I fall inside. Superman arrives just as you are about to fall in and pulls you back. Then he lifts me out- is any of us any less saved by Super-man? One is saved from falling in, another is rescued from the pit- Both owe their rescue to the same person! So Mary was saved from falling into sin, we were saved from the sin we fell into- All of us credit our salvation to the only one who saves. The only difference is that Mary needed the same salvation prior, by God’s mercy and divine decree, due to her completely unique place in Salvation History, and God being God, arranged it. He gave her “a down-payment” or " a loan" against the sacrifice of Christ to come, and already happened from the beginning. That’s what it means to say “in view” of the perfect merits which her son was to achieve- you see, God was not afraid of a possible default on the loan by his son! Think about it in terms of a divinely negotiated arrangement to which Mary was not privy, but of which she (and the human race who said “yes” to salvation through her) was the primary beneficiary.

As I said, fact still remains. When the Angel greeted her, she was already filled to the brim with grace- No sin. This same grace is what took our savior to the cross to gain for us, to earn it to the fullest measure for us all (including his Mother who was already enjoying it).

Peace!

 

[Good_Fella]

My use of the word Good there was a reference to you, Good Fella, and not to grace hence the cap Sorry for the confusion.

No problem, Richard.

You state what you THINK I as a protestant believe what grace is. That being one dimensional and then you go on to discribe two dimensions “it’s legal and behavioural quality.” You seem here to view righteosness and grace as one and the same thing.

I stated that Protestants think of righteousness in one dimension - not grace. I fail to see how you conclude that I confuse righteousness with grace. God’s grace permeates the soul to effect a change of heart so that a person becomes inherently righteous and just in His sight (cf. Ezekiel 36: 26-27). Because Protestants think of righteousness as something only forensic and external to the individual, to the extent of downplaying the power of God’s grace, they cannot conceive Mary to have been made perfect and sinless by divine grace.

Now you seem to be seperating righteousness and grace saying that grace effects the growth and transformation of righteousness that as you say is intrinsic. I can only take this to mean that you think grace is something like spiritual fertilizer making the righteousness that is already within us, self righteousness, to grow.

Human nature wasn’t totally corrupted by Adam’s sin, but just wounded. And so God’s actual graces are necessary to help us grow in righteousness and strive for Christian perfection.

So you believe that there are degrees of justification? Does that mean that the person who is on the lower end of justification is not REALLY just before God? Here’s what the bible says. Rom.5: 14-16:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression… for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Like I said, Catholics think of righteousness in two dimensions: quality and quantity. When we are initially justified upon baptism we are pure and perfect in God’s sight. But from that point on our justification progressess along with our growth in righteousness and increase of holiness as we strive for Christian perfection in our lives. We become more righteous through the course of doing good works in grace (Phil 2:12-13). James teaches us that good works contribute to our justification (Jas 2:14-26). An increase in - not of - justification is not the same thing as justification. It is not moving from a state in which one does not have sanctifying grace to a state in which he has it. An increase in justification is an increase in sanctifying grace - the only formal cause of justification. Increasing in justification is growing in grace (2 Pet 3:18) and becoming more conformed to the likeness of Christ by an increase of the finite capacity of our participation in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). No individual can merit his justification by any works. But once he is already justified through the merits of Christ and in a state of grace, he can merit an increase in justification by doing good works out of love for God and neighbour while growing in grace. Think of a person who is justified as a 16 oz glass containing 4ounces of clean and pure water, another as one with 8 ounces, and another with 12 ounces. Mary is a 16 oz glass of clean and pure water filled to the brim. Jesus is an infinite sea of clean and pure water in his sacred humanity by his substantial grace of union with the Father.

One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.
1 Corinthians 15, 41

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

This passage does not apply to good works done in and through divine grace but to works done apart from God’s grace. Rachel was justified because of her charitable hospitality, so James tells us.

John 3
1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Jn. says we purifieth ourselves through the faith and the hope of the returning of the risen Savior.

We purify ourselves by cooperating with divine grace that actually does the purifying by transforming our human nature to the likeness of Christ in his sacred humanity, as we hope in being resurrected with the just.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No problem, Richard.

I stated that Protestants think of righteousness in one dimension - not grace. I fail to see how you conclude that I confuse righteousness with grace.

Grace is certainly good for the soul’s sanctification and as an aid for us to lead a holy life by God’s goodness. Grace is not merely God’s favour to us. As a Protestant, you think of righteousness in one dimension: it’s legal and behavioural quality.

I’m not sure where you got your idea of what Protestants think about grace. I’m not even sure that it’s possible for grace which is such an intimate faith relationship with our Lord to be external.

Human nature wasn’t totally corrupted by Adam’s sin, but just wounded.

See Jer.17:9 above.

And so God’s actual graces are necessary to help us grow in righteousness and strive for Christian perfection.

Above you said

God’s grace permeates the soul to effect a change of heart

Now you say that God’s grace merely helps us to grow in the righteousness that I can only assume you believe is already there or our self righteousness. But the bible says that doesn’t exist.

Isaiah 64
6But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Like I said, Catholics think of righteousness in two dimensions: quality and quantity. When we are initially justified upon baptism we are pure and perfect in God’s sight.

We are pure and perfect in God’s eyes when we are justified, however that does not happen at our Baptism. It happens when we first believe in and accept the grace of God in the sacrifice of His perfect Son.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

But from that point on our justification progressess along with our growth in righteousness and increase of holiness as we strive for Christian perfection in our lives. We become more righteous through the course of doing good works in grace (Phil 2:12-13). James teaches us that good works contribute to our justification (Jas 2:14-26). An increase in - not of - justification is not the same thing as justification. It is not moving from a state in which one does not have sanctifying grace to a state in which he has it. An increase in justification is an increase in sanctifying grace - the only formal cause of justification. Increasing in justification is growing in grace (2 Pet 3:18) and becoming more conformed to the likeness of Christ by an increase of the finite capacity of our participation in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). No individual can merit his justification by any works. But once he is already justified through the merits of Christ and in a state of grace, he can merit an increase in justification by doing good works out of love for God and neighbour while growing in grace. Think of a person who is justified as a 16 oz glass containing 4ounces of clean and pure water, another as one with 8 ounces, and another with 12 ounces. Mary is a 16 oz glass of clean and pure water filled to the brim. Jesus is an infinite sea of clean and pure water in his sacred humanity by his substantial grace of union with the Father.

One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.
1 Corinthians 15, 41

Our salvation takes place in thee stages

1. Justification
   This occures the minute we accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins. To the best of my knowledge, gleened from scripture, there are no degrees of justification. You are either just or not.
2. Sanctification
   This is a lifelong process and is the growth in holiness through the knowledge of Jesus and the study of the word, the Bible. Jn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
   3)Glorification
   This of coarse is the end result of our matinence of the other two.

This passage does not apply to good works done in and through divine grace but to works done apart from God’s grace. Rachel was justified because of her charitable hospitality, so James tells us.

Right it would be our self righteousness. Perhaps I misunderstood, but isn’t it this righteosness that you are talking about when you say

“And so God’s actual graces are necessary to help us grow in righteousness and strive for Christian perfection.”

See it is my understanding that God’s grace through the sacrifice of Christ Completely replaces the self righteousness or the old man of sin as Paul would say or our filthy rags as Isaiah would say with the righteousness of Christ and thereby we become perfect in God’s eyes. We don’t have to strive for it and as long as we maintain our relationship with the source of grace we will remain perfect in God’s eyes.

We purify ourselves by cooperating with divine grace that actually does the purifying by transforming our human nature to the likeness of Christ in his sacred humanity, as we hope in being resurrected with the just.

PAX :heaven:

I have trouble with this “We purify ourselves” Maybe I’m being nitpicky, but I don’t believe that we can do anything. I believe it is all God working in us. Our only contribution is faith. Faith that is not dead.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ll try and sqeeze in something via my phone and then I need to sign off.

Not sure I understand your questuon Mary. Nonetheless, I believe God, through men, put the Bible together. Whether or not that authenticates the men in question is answered by the questions as to whether or nor Balaam’s donkey was authenticated when he spoke to him. Don’t hear me wrong, I’m not saying that the men who put the Bible together were d
donkeys!
Only that God can get done what needs to get done through anyone. )umbsup:

Remember you quoting previously that Jesus Himself inspired the Apostles’ teachings (as is reflectef in their letters - what we know as the Epistles)? I agree with that. Jesus is God. That makes the Epistles the word of God. The Gospels reflect the words, actions and circumstances concerning Jesus. This too then is the word of God. Revelations 1 states that it too is an instruction from God. Thus, His word. We conclude that the NT is the word of God.

Want to be approved by God? This is what the Bible says how you do it: (2 Timothy 2:15) - “work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.”

What is the truth spoken about in 2 Timothy 2? Jesus says, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Hope that helps.

You can believe that if you wish. How do you handle modern scholarship Protestant/Catholic that point out the following:

“Pseudepigraphic Letters” - The three Pastoral Letters, along with three other Deutero-Pauline epistles (Col, Eph, 2 Thess), are attributed to the apostle Paul, but were almost certainly not written by Paul himself. Rather, they are probably pseudepigraphic (i.e., written in Paul’s name by one or more of his followers after his death).

So now you have 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, Titus, Ephesians, 2 Thessolonians…not written by an Apostle therefore your notion about the Apostle wrote them therefore they must be Scripture…and you use 2 Timothy …all Scripture is inspired…not written by Paul but penned by a follower after his death…how can you be sure that these are Scripture if not written by Paul?.,…your notion that an Apostle wrote it therefore it is Scripture falls to dust…

 

[CopticChristian]

Christians decided which books would be included. The only questionable book is the Revelation of John. They felt that they should include one of the apocalyptic books, and the one attributed to Peter was more fantastic than John’s Revelation. Revelation won by two votes and became the last and 66th book of the Bible.

What Catholics assume is that the Church was all Catholic until the reformation. Prior to Constantine we have our roots going back to Jesus also. From Constantine to Pope Leo changes began that started a drift way from the plain and sure pure gospel of Jesus Christ. This is my view.

Wow. Christians, They…They must have names…you mean I have been deceived by my Church…give me these names of these Christians…I had no idea that I was far astray…List for me these changes, give me about 10 and then I can decide whether I need to reasses my allegiance to the Church. Thank you.