Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

[lanman87]

If Baptism is not the apparatus for receiving the Holy Spirit, why ask this question?

2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

Why would he asked them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed if it wasn’t how you received the Holy Spirit? Also, notice they also didn’t receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized. They received the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius when he was listening to Peters sermon. Before water baptism. If water baptism is how the Holy Spirit is given then how did Cornelius receive it before water baptism? Maybe this was what Paul was talking about in Galatians and Ephesians when he said you received the Spirit by faith/belief.

Well, not really. Most Protestants with whom I’ve spoken, say this

I believe that we will all appears before the judgement seat of Christ but those who are “in Christ” will be judged on Christ Righteousness and not our own.

 

[De_Maria]

The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius when he was listening to Peters sermon. Before water baptism. If water baptism is how the Holy Spirit is given then how did Cornelius receive it before water baptism?

Similar to the way that Saul did in the Old Testament. In my opinion, St. Cornelius received a gift of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, in order to show St. Peter and the other Christians, that God was ready to include Gentiles in His plan of salvation. That is certainly how St. Peter understood it, because he said:

Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

In my opinion, if Baptism were not necessary for salvation, St. Peter would not have said that. He would have, instead, said, "“All have seen that God has saved these Gentiles because of their faith! They have believed and so are now saved! God be praised!”

There would have been no need for him to mention baptism, at all.

Maybe this was what Paul was talking about in Galatians and Ephesians when he said you received the Spirit by faith/belief.

Except that Scripture mentions being baptized many times and the references are about water baptism.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

So, unless you have St. Paul contradicting Scripture, Baptism is assumed to be by water.

I believe that we will all appears before the judgement seat of Christ but those who are “in Christ” will be judged on Christ Righteousness and not our own.

Which contradicts Scripture which says:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

And again:

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

 

[Cathoholic]

Ianman87 . . . .

What I read is we are justified by faith apart from the law, that is separate from the law. I don’t see anywhere where Paul says that works that a man does is sufficient to justify (or help justify) a man if they are joined with faith.

Ianman87.

Why do you keep pretending it is only one or the other situation?

Working (on our own) vrs. faith.

I have been over the error of that motif with you several times,

There is another situation and I have explained it and cited it many times for you. (Christ at work IN YOU, both for the will and good pleasure of the Father).

 

[Cathoholic]

For others here, Ianman87’s post at least suggests a built-in phony pre-supposition that your justification is whittled down to a mere moment ALONE.

As has been explained. That is a partial truth.

Justification is a moment followed by a lifelong process.

And in that process you MUST WORK in union with Christ (according to your state in life) otherwise you will not be going to Heaven.

You will have forfeited your salvation if you refuse to bear fruit that will last.

 

[fhansen]

No. Only the Ten Commandments. But, that is part of the confusion with understanding St. Paul. Sometimes he refers to the Law as though it is the entire Law and sometimes as though it is only the Ten Commandments.

And yet neither can justify us. Removing a little flap of skin does not make a man just or righteous, but neither does mere external obedience of the ten commandments. We don’t obey first of all in order to be right in God’s eyes (that’s self-righteousness); rather we turn to God first of all in order to be right in His eyes, and then He makes us just/righteous. Only in communion with Him, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’, to paraphrase John 15:5, can righteousness be realized in us. That’s the heart of the New Covenant. Adam, OTOH, thought he could go it alone, so to speak, apart from his Creator. When the time was ripe Jesus came to reconcile us, to get us back together with God, a communion that man was made for, and is totally lost without, whether he realizes it or not. We’re here, in fact, to come to this very realization.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

No. Only the Ten Commandments. But, that is part of the confusion with understanding St. Paul. Sometimes he refers to the Law as though it is the entire Law and sometimes as though it is only the Ten Commandments.

And yet neither can justify us.

That’s true.

Removing a little flap of skin does not make a man just or righteous, but neither does mere external obedience of the ten commandments.

I follow.

We don’t obey first of all in order to be right in God’s eyes (that’s self-righteousness);

I don’t agree with this. We do obey in order to be right in God’s eyes. Self righteousness is being right in your own eyes.

rather we turn to God first of all in order to be right in His eyes,

Hm? Confusing. You must have made a typo somewhere. Because you just said the opposite above.

and then He makes us just/righteous.

Agreed.

Only in communion with Him, ‘apart from Whom we can do nothing’, to paraphrase John 15:5, can righteousness be realized in us. That’s the heart of the New Covenant. Adam, OTOH, thought he could go it alone, so to speak, apart from his Creator. When the time was ripe Jesus came to reconcile us, to get us back together with God, a communion that man was made for, and is totally lost without, whether he realizes it or not. We’re here, in fact, to come to this very realization.

Yep!

 

[fhansen]

I don’t agree with this. We do obey in order to be right in God’s eyes. Self righteousness is being right in your own eyes.

Hm? Confusing. You must have made a typo somewhere. Because you just said the opposite above.

Ok, maybe I wasn’t clear. The difference between the old and new covenants is that, in the new, we come to know God, in an intimate and direct manner, and begin to partake of Him as we enter communion with Him. This begins with faith, in response to grace and this is the first necessary step in our becoming authentically righteous, in being able to fulfill the commandments. Otherwise we’re still as Adam was after the Fall, autonomous from God for all practical purposes, still doing things by our own efforts. But with the NC, obedience stems increasingly from love of Him, rather than from fear or sheer sense of obligation or by trying to justify ourselves, which is what it means to be “under the law”, even though the obligation to obey, to be righteous, always remains for man.

But we’re here to learn that we cannot obey as we should, on our own, without His help. This access to His help is to be “under grace”. Only God can justify us, only He can cause us to obey and fulfill the law as we should, the right way, as He gives us the virtues of faith, hope, and, most importantly, love, which fulfills the law and excludes sin by its nature. The Law, itself, could not achieve that, which is why the Old Covenant was made obsolete by the new and better one.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord. Jer 31:33-34

It’s not a question of whether we must be obedient (Protestantism is sometimes confused or in disagreement on this point), but on how that obedience is realized. Rom 2:13 holds absolutely true under both covenants, but only the NC can make it happen, the right way- according to God’s wisdom and plan for man.

 

[De_Maria]

So what is the Evangelical/Protestant answer, if you haven’t mentioned it thus far? What, IOW, is “the righteousness of God [that] has been manifested apart from the law”, “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe”?

I was reading through the thread and saw your question. To be fair, has any Catholic answered this question, either?

As for me, I think the “righteousness of God” to which St. Paul is making reference, is the “washing of regeneration” of the Holy Spirit. In other words, when men do the commandments, they achieve a righteousness of their own. That righteousness is not perfect. That’s why it is said that it does not “justify of all things”.

But the “righteousness of God” which is effected in the washing of regeneration, which we believe occurs in Baptism, does justify of all things. It washes away Original Sin and the temporal consequences of sin which kept the Old Testament Saints out of heaven. Heb 11

Acts 13:39 And by him (i.e. Jesus) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

I believe the Catholic Church Teaches that in order to receive the “righteousness of God” one must first achieve a righteousness of their own, by keeping the Commandments.

Trent VI
Chapter VI
…and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God…

And this explains what St. Paul meant when he traded his own righteousness for that righteousness which is of God, by faith, in Christ.

Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

 

[Justin_Mary]

The elders at the local assembly would also have understood baptism in much of the New Testament to be talking about being plunged into Christ, overwhelmed by Christ, immersed in Christ or united to Christ as opposed to the rite of water Baptism.

So that begs the question, what did the 1st century Christians do. Surely their understanding of immersion in Christ & washing of sins would be evident in their practice.

If only there was some way to know what they actually did.

 

[lanman87]

Similar to the way that Saul did in the Old Testament. In my opinion, St. Cornelius received a gift of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, in order to show St. Peter and the other Christians, that God was ready to include Gentiles in His plan of salvation. That is certainly how St. Peter understood it, because he said:

I agree that this was the purpose that the household of Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit. However, I also believe that this showed the normative sequence and that is why Paul says they received the Spirit by faith/belief in Galatians and Ephesians. And that all those references to baptism with water are responses to being Baptized with the Holy Spirit, that is received the Holy Spirit by faith/belief.

I even think the story of the Men who received the Holy Spirit when Paul laid hands on them is an indication of receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. It is different to intellectually understand and even intellectually obey. I think they that didn’t really have a “heart change” and really didn’t “get it” if you will, until Paul laid his land on them. The evangelical position is that people can be converted (come to faith/belief) before baptism (which is what happens most often), while being baptized, and after baptism (if one was baptized without faith).

Also, please tell me what you think of this 13 minute video.

Does Acts 2:38 say about Baptism?

This guy pretty much sums up what I’ve discovered. Keep in mind, one of the (many) reasons for the reformation was the resurgence of Greek and Hebrew study among intellectuals. They realized that much of the what the Greek says isn’t what the church teaches.

Which contradicts Scripture which says:

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

And again:

Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

If you want to discuss judgement then please start a new thread. We’ve wandered way off topic for this thread already.

However, here is a link to the Evangelical view on Judgement.

 

[lanman87]

Why do you keep pretending it is only one or the other situation?

Working (on our own) vrs. faith.

All I did was ask how Catholics explain the apparent contradiction in these two verses. I didn’t try to defend faith alone or even mention any doctrine associated with the verse when I posted the question. I didn’t even comment until someone asked me a direct question.

As a non-Catholic Christian I first posted this on the Non-Catholic board and a moderator moved it the Sacred Scripture board.

 

[De_Maria]

I agree that this was the purpose that the household of Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit…I even think the story of the Men who received the Holy Spirit when Paul laid hands on them is an indication of receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion.

Hm? So, you believe one can receive the Holy Spirit via the imposition of hands. But not via the pouring of water?

You probably didn’t know that the laying of hands is another Sacrament. Confirmation.

And, by the way, St. Paul acknowledged that those had believed and had not received the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ and laid hands on them, in order that they would be confirmed in the Spirit.

It is different to intellectually understand and even intellectually obey. I think they that didn’t really have a “heart change” and really didn’t “get it” if you will, until Paul laid his land on them. The evangelical position is that people can be converted (come to faith/belief) before baptism (which is what happens most often), while being baptized, and after baptism (if one was baptized without faith).

Where does God figure into that? You see, we believe it is God who is in control. If God sees their faith, He credits it to them as righteousness. This is what happens at every Sacrament and is why we approach Sacraments in the state of grace. Well, except Confession which is for the purpose of restoring us to the state of grace. Even then, however, we must repent of our sins.

Also, please tell me what you think of this 13 minute video.

…This guy pretty much sums up what I’ve discovered. Keep in mind, one of the (many) reasons for the reformation was the resurgence of Greek and Hebrew study among intellectuals. They realized that much of the what the Greek says isn’t what the church teaches.

He says the same thing you’ve been saying. And, it comes down to this, who did Jesus appoint as the Teacher of the Faith. Jesus didn’t pass out bibles and say, “figure it out for yourselves!” Did He?

If you want to discuss judgement then please start a new thread. We’ve wandered way off topic for this thread already.

Aren’t we discussing Romans 2:13? and the context leading to it is precisely about the Judgment (Rom 6-12). In fact, Rom 2:13 IS about the Judgment. It is in the Judgment that those who “do the Law” will be “justified”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Ianman87 . . . .

All I did was ask how Catholics explain the apparent contradiction in these two verses.

Fair enough Ianman87.

St. Paul is discussing the law in differing contexts.

The natural law that is on all men’s hearts (Gentile and Jew) that we must follow or at least strive to follow.

ROMANS 2:14-15a 14 When Gentiles who
have not the law
do by nature what the law requires,
they are a law to themselves,
even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that
what the law requires is written on their hearts . . .

And St. Paul is also discussing “The Law” in the context of the law in the sense of the Torah and assumes his readers understand the differences.

ROMANS 2:17-19a 17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and
boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent,
because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind . . .

But obeying the law (or for that matter belief) is not salvific apart from Jesus Christ.

That is WHY we need Baptism (a “circumcised heart”).

To supernaturalize our faith, hope, and charity.

ROMANS 2:25-29 25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and
real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.
His praise is not from men but from God.

Which is WHY Catholics can affirm what you affirm about faith (we are brethren on that point).

But Catholics ALSO BELIEVE St. Paul at his words . . .

ROMANS 2:5-9, 13 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For
he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in
well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,
he will give eternal life;
8 but for those who are factious and
do not obey the truth,
but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, . . . .
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

For it is not merely the hearers of the law who are righteous before God (or the hearers of Torah),
but the doers of the law (both Jewish person AND Gentile) who will be justified.

And much of the Bible-ONLY Christian world DENIES this (or cannot accept it at face value. Because they DENY the transformative power of Christ working IN and THROUGH them but ONLY affirm Christ COVERING them in righteousness).

It is a partial-truth mini gospel.

 

[De_Maria]

All I did was ask how Catholics explain the apparent contradiction in these two verses. I didn’t try to defend faith alone or even mention any doctrine associated with the verse when I posted the question. I didn’t even comment until someone asked me a direct question.

We probably assumed that you were challenging the Doctrine of justification by faith and works. That’s what Protestants usually do.

I did notice, however, where you don’t seem to believe in faith alone. At least, not the way other Protestants do. I remember you saying something to the effect that, “faith is not a true faith unless it is accompanied by works.” That’s not a direct quote. But, I seem to remember something like that from you.

So, anyway, did we answer your question about the “apparent” contradiction to your satisfaction?

 

[Cathoholic]

And following “the law” is even MORE complicated than mere natural law. (In Christ there is
"the royal law of liberty" too).

Why?

Because Christ FULFILLS the law.

MATTHEW 5:17 17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

So now (IN HIM) we no longer merely to follow the natural law to the letter, but in spirit as well.

And we can do this BECAUSE of the transformative power of Jesus Christ!

So we are not merely called for example, to not commit adultry . . . but empowered by Christ we don’t even entertain thoughts of it.

MATTHEW 5:27-28 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

.

Now the Bible Christian often replies, “You don’t keep the law perfectly”.

Well the same can be said about “faith”.

You don’t have faith the proverbial “size” of a mustard seed.

But that is part of WHY our salvation is a process.

And it is because of Christ IN US that we CAN and MUST work or “sow” unto eternal life.

And that process sooner or later results in our keeping morality to perfection otherwise we will not go to Heaven (“nothing unclean can enter that Holy City”).

And deceivers teach otherwise.

GALATIANS 6:7-8 7 Do not be deceived;
God is not mocked,
for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption;
but he who sows to the Spirit
will from the Spirit
reap eternal life.

(Notice St. Paul teaches IN Christ we CAN sow and reap unto eternal life.)

 

[TULIPed]

I did notice, however, where you don’t seem to believe in faith alone. At least, not the way other Protestants do. I remember you saying something to the effect that, “faith is not a true faith unless it is accompanied by works.”

Might I respectfully suggest that you have a look at some of the Protestant confessions - perhaps the Westminster or either of the Helvetic confessions. I’m a Reformed Protestant, and I’ve read most of your Catechism (it’s very well written and organized.) I think it would perhaps be helpful in explaining the way in which we see faith and works. Here’s a brief excerpt from the Westminster on the concept of good works:

“These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith;a and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.”

(My emphasis added)

 

[fhansen]

The “righteousness of God”, also referred to as a “foreign righteousness”, is something that is alien to fallen man even though it’s the very righteousness he was always intended to have, to the extent that he remains in communion with God. Adam did otherwise and lost his state of justice or righteousness, becoming his own standard for “righteousness”.

The righteousness of God in any case is reflected in the natural law, based on the divine or eternal law, revealed by the Ten commandments; that is God’s morality for human beings, based on love. Phil 3 tells us that this righteousness comes through faith, on the basis of faith rather than by the law. This faith consists in the reestablishment of union between God and man, and from there God can do a work in us, of justifying us.

And yes, even though Paul excelled at observing the Law as a Pharisee, it was pure garbage compared to the righteousness he received through Christ.The former just wasn’t the real thing, which is why Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and white-washed tombs, clean on the outside while still filthy within.

So, again, the Church teaches that the law “shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it.”

We need to hear and know and be reminded of what must be done. But the law cannot, by itself, cause real righteousness in us; only God can. So we need to consider the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah, quoted in Hebrew 8 & 10, carefully:

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Another way of saying all this is that, unless and until the law is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor, a work that only He can accomplish in us with our cooperation, then we aren’t yet fully righteous/perfected.

 

[De_Maria]

Might I respectfully suggest that you have a look at some of the Protestant confessions - perhaps the Westminster or either of the Helvetic confessions. I’m a Reformed Protestant, and I’ve read most of your Catechism (it’s very well written and organized.) …

Well, I don’t want to stop you, we can talk about what you believe in this matter. But I’ve been talking to Ianman87 for a few days now about what he believes in this matter. Over a period of about 20 years, I’ve talked to a whole lot of Protestants from the various confessions. And I’ve found that the Confessions state what they are supposed to believe. But, most of the time, they don’t believe what the Confessions say they are supposed to believe. So, I like to ascertain what the individual Protestant says he believes. That way, we can have a conversation.

Anyway, we were talking earlier and he said:

True repentance can only come after conversion (coming to faith, trusting in Christ, being born-again…

Based on that, I had assumed that he believes in salvation by faith alone. Since most Protestants will tell me that no one can do good works until after they are saved. Is that not what you believe?

So, in my post which you addressed, I’m leading to something. I said:

I did notice, however, where you don’t seem to believe in faith alone. At least, not the way other Protestants do. I remember you saying something to the effect that, “faith is not a true faith unless it is accompanied by works.” That’s not a direct quote. But, I seem to remember something like that from you.

Here’s the dilemma I see in that idea. If he believes that true faith must be accompanied by works.

And if he believes that we can’t do good works before we are saved.

Then, if you share that belief, what sort of faith do you or he believe, saves? A faith that is not true because it is not accompanied by works? Faith alone? What?

Is that a fair question?

 

[De_Maria]

The “righteousness of God”, also referred to as a “foreign righteousness”, is something that is alien to fallen man even though it’s the very righteousness he was always intended to have, to the extent that he remains in communion with God. Adam did otherwise and lost his state of justice or righteousness, becoming his own standard for “righteousness”.

The righteousness of God in any case is reflected in the natural law, based on the divine or eternal law, revealed by the Ten commandments; that is God’s morality for human beings, based on love. Phil 3 tells us that this righteousness comes through faith, on the basis of faith rather than by the law. This faith consists in the reestablishment of union between God and man, and from there God can do a work in us, of justifying us.

And yes, even though Paul excelled at observing the Law as a Pharisee, it was pure garbage compared to the righteousness he received through Christ.The former just wasn’t the real thing, which is why Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and white-washed tombs, clean on the outside while still filthy within.

So, again, the Church teaches that the law “shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it.”

We need to hear and know and be reminded of what must be done. But the law cannot, by itself, cause real righteousness in us; only God can. So we need to consider the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah, quoted in Hebrew 8 & 10, carefully:

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Another way of saying all this is that, unless and until the law is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor, a work that only He can accomplish in us with our cooperation, then we aren’t yet fully righteous/perfected.

I agree with all that, but I think it can be stated more simply. It is the washing of regeneration. It is the complete removal of all sin from our souls. Thus, we are returned to that state of union and complete justice with which Adam was created.

 

[TULIPed]

And I’ve found that the Confessions state what they are supposed to believe. But, most of the time, they don’t believe what the Confessions say they are supposed to believe.

Agreed - I would argue that this could be said about Catholics as well, no? Sadly, I think both Catholics and Protestants suffer generally from poor catechesis.