'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[mcq72]

But earlier you tried to spin it as though St. Augustine put his interpretation of Scripture above the Church.

Not sure i did that…for sure said he had nice balance of preacher, church, writ, and divine revelation. And while not negating other sources of truth and authority he did write of the superlative authority of scripture.

But I repeat, St. Augustine understood that the Catholic Church has supreme authority on earth and that the Catholic Church is infallible. Period.

Perhaps he cited supreme authority of church also and infallibility, just not sure it is in Confessions. Not sure he wrestled with our debate of two supreme authorities (bible and church/ Tradition) or not.

And thus you prove free will.

Well i hope so…remember I do not deny free will, only qualify it.

It is grace that makes us free

Oh, I thought you proprt we are free anyways. Otherwise we are on same page, that we have free will , and only can excercise it righteously for initial salvation/ rebirth by grace.

A person that is alive does not need to quicken himself. HE’S ALREADY ALIVE!!!

Are we back to that again, you speaking of what is born of flesh and I what needs to be born of the spirit?

With your goodness and free will can you quicken yourself spiritually? Of course not. We even need help in seeing the need and in wanting it, right ?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The New Testament was written by the Catholic Church. We don’t subscribe to the error of Scripture alone. We subscribe to the Teachings of Jesus Christ. It is by the context of those Teachings that we understand what St. Paul meant.

You’re stuck with your erroneous doctrine of the bible alone. Now live with it.

I wasn’t debating sola scriptura with you. I was pointing out Paul did say anything about water baptism in that particular verse,. If it is there, please point it out. As far as the NT being written by the church, if you are referring to the apostles and their first century contemporaries, no one denies this. But that does not change the fact that water baptism is not even alluded to in that particular passage in Romans by Paul. Paul said he BELIEVED God, which is why he was credited righteousness, not because he was water baptized. Water baptism was a command given to the redeemed CHURCH, not to Abraham who lived two millennia earlier.

 

[TNMan]

I’d also take issue with the statement that “Catholic Church” wrote the Bible. The Apostles wrote it. The catholic (little c) church compiled it, not just the Roman church.

 

[Dougbro1]

That issue can be taken up in the following thread:

Book Review: The Bible is a Catholic Book Sacred Scripture
Also, at the time, Christianity wasn’t even divided, so the “little c” catholic church and the “big c” Catholic Church were one and the same. I mean, you probably wouldn’t agree with the idea that the apostles were the first Catholic pope and bishops, but that’s also a part of why we say that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible.

 

[De_Maria]

As I said before, not sure there is any verse that says such and such a person was born again…like Peter, or Mary and Joseph, Simeon, Paul. Yet I would say though not specifically mentioned, it is understood never the less…Please tell me Besareel or Joshua were not born of the Spirit, born again.

According to Catholic Teaching, they were not born again nor born of the Holy Spirit, which is basically the same thing…

So, you’re saying that the men and women of the Old Testament were given the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Whew!? So, Protestantism and the right to private interpretation of Scripture has led you to believe that Old Testament justification is exactly the same as New Testament justification. No difference. Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, in vain.

Tell me, why did Jesus die upon the Cross?

Does it matter to you that Scripture says:

John 7:39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

I wonder how prevalent this is? @Johan, @TULIPed, @RaisedCatholic? Care to chime in?

 

[De_Maria]

Not sure i did that…for sure said he had nice balance of preacher, church, writ, and divine revelation. And while not negating other sources of truth and authority he did write of the superlative authority of scripture.

All Catholics do that. And we, like St. Augustine, also assert that the Catholic Church’s Teaching of the Word of God in Sacred Tradition and Scripture, is infallible.

Perhaps he cited supreme authority of church also and infallibility, just not sure it is in Confessions. Not sure he wrestled with our debate of two supreme authorities (bible and church/ Tradition) or not.

There’s nothing to wrestle with. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God.
The Church is the Divinely appointed Servant of the Word of God. No wrestling.

Well i hope so…remember I do not deny free will, only qualify it.

You deny it and call it a qualification.

Oh, I thought you proprt we are free anyways.

1. I don’t know what “proprt” means. You’ve used it before, I assumed it was in error. Is that an abbreviation of something?
2. You are the one who denies that God gives us grace before we are justified.
3. The Catholic Church Teaches that we receive and are offered saving faith, every moment of our lives.

Otherwise we are on same page, that we have free will , and only can excercise it righteously for initial salvation/ rebirth by grace.

We can exercise our free will at any moment of our lives. God doesn’t withhold His grace from us.

Are we back to that again, you speaking of what is born of flesh and I what needs to be born of the spirit?

You speak of Total Depravity. The Catholic Church Teaches that men are made in the image of God.

With your goodness and free will can you quicken yourself spiritually? Of course not.

You are twisting that to act as though I have somewhere implied that God does not give us grace. But it is you who are saying that God withholds grace from us. And it is Protestants who claim to save themselves by their faith alone. Put the two together and you prove that Protestants are pelagians.

We even need help in seeing the need and in wanting it, right ?

God offers us the help at every instant of our lives and gives us the help from the time we are conceived. Have you not read in Scripture that no one has an excuse? If God withheld His grace, people would have an excuse. But no one has an excuse. If anyone winds up condemned, it is their fault. They won’t be able to cry out, “God withheld His grace, so how could I be saved?!”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Protestantism and the right to private interpretation of Scripture has led you to believe that Old Testament justification is exactly the same as New Testament justification. No difference. Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, in vain.

First, “private interpretation” is foreign to the Reformation, which taught sola scriptura which is NOT “private” interpretation, since sola scriptura allows SCRIPTURE to explain Scripture, not the Reformers or later Protestants themselves. When Paul stated “Abraham was credited righteousness because of his faith” this is because Jesus had not come yet to die for his sin against God. But because he trusted God was going to send a Savior, Jesus death applies to Abraham before Jesus was born. So, both OT and NT saints are justified by faith. The only difference between OT saints (like Abraham) and NT saints (like Paul), is OT saints were looking FORWARD to the cross, while NT saints look BACK to the cross. So, Jesus did not “die in vain.”

John 7:39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

This has to do with Jesus sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which could not occur until Jesus ascended to Heaven after His Resurrection.

And since Jesus told Nicodemus during His public ministry that he had to be “born again” to see the kingdom of God, obviously this was possible for this to happen to Nicodemus, as well as anyone else during Jesus’ ministry, as well as before.

When Jesus said this, He told Nicodemus “you are the teacher of Israel and you don’t know this?” Nicodemus was a Pharisee, who “taught Israel” from the exact same OT canon that Protestants do today. By saying this, Jesus was telling him that being “born again” could be found in his canon.

 

[mcq72]

Also, at the time, Christianity wasn’t even divided, so the “little c” catholic church and the “big c” Catholic Church were one and the same. I mean, you probably wouldn’t agree with the idea that the apostles were the first Catholic pope and bishops, but that’s also a part of why we say that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible.

Agree…GREEK only had capitals if i recall

As to apostles being Catholic, technically no. The term Catholic began to be used just after the apostles. However one could say a rose is still a rose by any other name. That is I would not argue against the apostles being Catholic in spirit. Had they lived a little longer they would have been under that name. No big deal.

We can still quibble would they have been more western Roman Catholic or eastern Orthodox, or even Protestant in some fashion, these three being later developments .

 

[De_Maria]

I wasn’t debating sola scriptura with you.

I know, but you’re trying to make me follow your erroneous doctrine when I explain our understanding of the Word of God. I refuse.

I was pointing out Paul did say anything about water baptism in that particular verse,. If it is there, please point it out.

It is. It is a reference to that which takes place in Baptism.

As far as the NT being written by the church, if you are referring to the apostles and their first century contemporaries, no one denies this.

Yes.

But that does not change the fact that water baptism is not even alluded to in that particular passage in Romans by Paul.

Yep. it is.

Paul said he BELIEVED God, which is why he was credited righteousness, not because he was water baptized.

In the Sacrament of Baptism, we also proclaim our faith in God, and then we are Baptized

Water baptism was a command given to the redeemed CHURCH, not to Abraham who lived two millennia earlier.

True. But it was St. Paul, a member of the redeemed Church, who is making reference to Abraham in the context of justification.

 

[De_Maria]

So, basically, you agree with @Mcq that the OT people also received the indwelling when they were alive?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I wasn’t debating sola scriptura with you.

Again, no I am not. I am responding to why some Protestants don’t agree based on the text of SCRIPTURE WE AGREE ON. Again, this is not “my erroneous doctrine.” That woukd only happen if I said something that cannot be found IN Scrioture.

I was pointing out Paul did say anything about water baptism in that particular verse,. If it is there, please point it out.

I wasn’t asking for your “opinion” of what the verse means. I was asking where - specifically - water baptism is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the verse from Romans you cited.

Water baptism was a command given to the redeemed CHURCH, not to Abraham who lived two millennia earlier.

So, are you saying that Abraham was credited righteousness because of his faith, Paul is saying this means Abraham was water baptized? If so, show me either an OT or NT verse that EXPLICITLY teaches Abraham was water baptized and that he demonstrated his faith BY being water baptized.

 

[De_Maria]

Again, no I am not. I am responding to why some Protestants don’t agree based on the text of SCRIPTURE WE AGREE ON.

1. Some Protestants don’t agree? Do you agree with them, or not?
2. We don’t agree that wives, should be lumped together with possessions. We believe the possession produced in a marital relationship is of a higher order than that held in goods and other inanimate materials.

Again, this is not “my erroneous doctrine.” That woukd only happen if I said something that cannot be found IN Scrioture.

Again, proving that you’re espousing Scripture alone. And, yes it is your erroneous doctrine because in teaching what others believe, you have taken ownership.

I wasn’t asking for your “opinion” of what the verse means. I was asking where - specifically - water baptism is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the verse from Romans you cited.

Again, because you want me to join you in your Scripture alone error. You are the one who has to produce explicit mentions in Scripture to prove your points because that is what you believe and preach. You believe the error of Scripture alone.

I don’t. I believe Sacred Tradition and Scripture as Taught by the Catholic Church.

So, are you saying that Abraham was credited righteousness because of his faith, Paul is saying this means Abraham was water baptized?

No. I’m saying that St. Paul is tying Abraham’s justification to New Testament justification, which occurs at Baptism.

If so, show me either an OT or NT verse that EXPLICITLY teaches Abraham was water baptized and that he demonstrated his faith BY being water baptized.

Lol! You’re kind of stuck in that rut all by yourself. See my response above.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I am responding to why some Protestants don’t agree based on the text of SCRIPTURE WE AGREE ON. Again, this is not “my erroneous doctrine.” That woukd only happen if I said something that cannot be found IN Scrioture.

Every word, every sentence and every paragraph has a particular meaning. Just finding a verse in Scripture does not make that sentence mean what you or the doctrine of a particular person or denomination you follow says it means. Even if it is not your own very personal interpretation, it is someone’s other than the Catholic church. Meaning it started out as someone’s private or personal interpretation.

Why Is Sola Scriptura Unreasonable? | Catholic Answers Video

 

[mcq72]

So, you’re saying that the men and women of the Old Testament were given the gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

To some extent yes, but not as is being poured out over all people (s) now.

“And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”"

Please tell me how being filled with the Spirit of God is not an in dwelling thing here in the OT?

I am saying folks in OT were born again, and only you being stuck in NT paradigm does not permit you to see this. Who said one needs indwelling like we have to be born again?

Again regeneration is where by the grace of God our spirits are quickened, made alive unto God once again. It is being born of God, no longer just born of the flesh. Children of God are in OT also.

So, Protestantism and the right to private interpretation of Scripture has led you to believe that Old Testament justification is exactly the same as New Testament justification. No difference. Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, in vain.

So tell me when Paul says old testament saints were justified by faith, like we are, was he wrong?

No one is saying beyond faith dispensations are the same concerning the Holy Spirit. But only a myopic theology would deny foreshadowing and spiritual life in OT saints. It only leaves you a straw man to put forth in objections to OT regeneration.

John 7:39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost (not water)”, as happened at Pentecost. That was not regeneration. That was not the indwelling, which happened first when Jesus breathed on the apostles, after calvary but before the Lord’s glorification.

Your proof text has folks being born again only after Pentecost. Again we do not read of rebaptisms in water by all the disciples, and the thousands whom John, and then Jesus and apostles water baptized, in order to be born again.

Tell me, why did Jesus die upon the Cross?

To ransom, propitiate for His children, to whomever would believe. Whatvyou are saying is that there were no children born of God before Calvary. Writ doesnt say if I recall, that Calvary made children of OT saints. They were already born of God, but awaiting the ransom to be paid.

Christ did not pay my ransom in my lifetime, but 2000 years ago. Just as He paid for Abrahams ransom maybe 2000 years after his lifetime.

 

[mcq72]

There’s nothing to wrestle with. Sacred Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God.

Oh please “wrestling” over authority, be it papal, conciliar, or writ has a long history in the Church.

You deny it (free will) and call it a qualification.

And you deny any qualification that is clearly in writ.

You are the one who denies that God gives us grace before we are justified.

No, but we differ on just what the grace is for and when justification occurs.

The Catholic Church Teaches that we receive and are offered saving faith, every moment of our lives

Do you mean after we are born again?

Otherwise sounds like, though opposite , that “if everyone is guilty, no one is to blame.” That is, if we receive saving faith evey moment of our lives , there is not one singular moment when it begins…like it is always there. How can anything become new to us, like we were once blind but now we see…this is impossible by your scenario.

We can exercise our free will at any moment of our lives. God doesn’t withhold His grace from us.

Reminds me of those who say I can quit smoking, or drinking any time. And you are right, the truth and love is always present to be had and to set one free. Indeed free will but muted in seeing love and truth till grace flips the switch.

You speak of Total Depravity. The Catholic Church Teaches that men are made in the image of God.

And what, God has hands and feet? Of course God is a spirit, and so are we. So what died, for in the day of sin you shall surely die (in the garden).

And it is Protestants who claim to save themselves by their faith alone.

“Themselves” and “theirs” are strange words describing a gift…indeed Pelagian…you go first ascribing works and deeds as necesary for grace, now its ever present grace.

 

[De_Maria]

Oh please “wrestling” over authority, be it papal, conciliar, or writ has a long history in the Church.

It has a long history in Protestantism because Luther did not want to obey Christ’s Church. So, he invented the solas in order to justify denying the Catholic Church’s authority.

And you deny any qualification that is clearly in writ.

Nope.

No, but we differ on just what the grace is for and when justification occurs.

Ok.

Do you mean after we are born again?

The Catholic Church does not teach that we are born again by faith alone.

Otherwise sounds like, though opposite , that “if everyone is guilty, no one is to blame.”

That is you saying that. It sounds like the typical, illogical stuff that Protestants teach.

That is, if we receive saving faith evey moment of our lives

You’re still twisting everything I say. Does the word “offer” mean the same thing as “receive”?

this is impossible by your scenario.

That’s your scenario. It’s not what I said.

Reminds me of those who say…

I’m glad you don’t dispute it. It proves that you believe that God withholds His grace from us at certain points in our lives. That’s why you believe in Total Depravity and the other errors of Calvin.

And what, God has hands and feet?

Now you’re just being argumentative. Do you mean that you also deny that men are made in God’s image? Wow?

Genesis 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

“Themselves” and “theirs” are strange words describing a gift…indeed Pelagian…you go first ascribing works and deeds as necesary for grace, now its ever present grace.

Lol! That’s you’re twisting of my words. Remember, I posted Trent.

Trent VI, Chapter 5…, The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace,

Lol! Now all that twisting of yours is gone to waste.

 

[De_Maria]

To some extent yes, but not as is being poured out over all people (s) now.

It sounds to me like you’ve simply invented your own religion. I can see why none of the other Protestants want to chime in. Your reading of Scripture is unprecedented.

“And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship”"

Please tell me how being filled with the Spirit of God is not an in dwelling thing here in the OT?

Simple. He is not made a Temple of God. He is given the grace to do certain things in order to accomplish certain tasks.

4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.

Not for the washing away of sins nor for regeneration.

I am saying folks in OT were born again, and only you being stuck in NT paradigm does not permit you to see this. Who said one needs indwelling like we have to be born again?

The Catholic Church…

TRENT VI,
CHAPTER IV.

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Again regeneration is where by the grace of God our spirits are quickened, made alive unto God once again. It is being born of God, no longer just born of the flesh. Children of God are in OT also.

Not regenerated. All men are children of God.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

That is what St. Paul said to the Greeks. We are ALSO His offspring.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

So tell me when Paul says old testament saints were justified by faith, like we are, was he wrong?

Nope. We must first undergo the “forensic” justification of the OT Jews before we are admitted to the washing of regeneration. Unless one keeps the Law, one will not be regenerated by God.

No one is saying beyond faith dispensations are the same concerning the Holy Spirit. But only a myopic theology would deny foreshadowing and spiritual life in OT saints. It only leaves you a straw man to put forth in objections to OT regeneration.

That is your myopic theology. A foreshadowing means and indication. A sign. Not the equivalent. The OT is only a shadow of the NT. We have many and greater promises.

“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost (not water)”, as happened at Pentecost. That was not regeneration. That was not the indwelling, which happened first when Jesus breathed on the apostles, after calvary but before the Lord’s glorification.

Jesus Christ baptizes with water and the Holy Spirit.

Your proof text has folks being born again only after Pentecost.

Nope. Those who were Baptized by Christ and the Apostles, were regenerated at that time. But Jesus Christ confirmed His entire Church at the Pentecost.

There is Baptism and there is Confirmation. Two separate Sacraments.

Again we do not read of rebaptisms in water by all the disciples, and the thousands whom John, and then Jesus and apostles water baptized, in order to be born again.

No, we don’t. Pentecost is the first episode of Confirmation where the grace of the Holy Spirit is “powered up”!

1302 It is evident from its celebration that the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation is the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

To ransom, propitiate for His children, to whomever would believe. Whatvyou are saying is that there were no children born of God before Calvary. Writ doesnt say if I recall, that Calvary made children of OT saints. They were already born of God, but awaiting the ransom to be paid.

That’s not what Scripture says. You are making that up. And you are making God to be an unloving Father who does not admit His children into His home.

Christ did not pay my ransom in my lifetime, but 2000 years ago. Just as He paid for Abrahams ransom maybe 2000 years after his lifetime.

Yep. And that is when Abraham was regenerated and born again, after Christ died upon the Cross.

 

[Johan]

Whew!? So, Protestantism and the right to private interpretation of Scripture has led you to believe that Old Testament justification is exactly the same as New Testament justification. No difference.

I think that RaisedCatholic has already given the response that I was about to give. The gist of Paul’s argument is rather that we are justified in the same way as Abraham was, i.e., by faith. He was justified by faith in the promise of Christ, and we are justified by faith in Christ who died for our sins and who was raised for our justification (Rom. 4:25).

Jesus Christ died upon the Cross, in vain.

How ironic that you of all people would write that.

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Gal. 2:21)

 

[mcq72]

The OT is only a shadow of the NT. We have many and greater promises

Yes, but OT saints had spiritual life and were quickened born again. Yes, we have greater promises but are also born again, but will even have greater realizations when in heaven. That does not diminish present realities.

Just as a baby keeps getting bigger and more “active” and effectual does not mean it was any less human, alive, as infant.

So we too grow in dispensations, from the garden of Eden, to Abraham, Moses, David, and NT, and finally, finally heaven, when we shall be the most like Him.