And you are Catholic and must maintain your Catholic stance--musn't you?
Actually, yes, I must. The difference between you and I is that I admit that I approach the Scriptures with certain presuppositions that influence how I read, interpret and understand the Scriptures.
You do the same thing I do--except the admitting part.
Since when is what the Bible says "psychobabble and claptrap"? Ephesians 2:8-9 is "psychobabble" and "claptrap"? How...distressing that you think so.
What the Bible says is God's Word and Truth. It is not psychobabble and claptrap at all.
I have no problem with what the Scriptures teach, properly read, interpreted and understood.
The problem I have is with what YOU and other Protestants are claiming the Scriptures say. It isn't the Bible I have a problem with, it is your teaching that I have a problem with.
And you are a Catholic, so what else can YOU say?
Indeed, what else can I say? Yes; I approach Scripture with the mind of the Church, not my own personal hang-ups, preferences, whims, etc. In other words--I approach Scripture with the collective mind of the Church of which I am a part, only secondarily do I do so as an individual.
I am first and foremost a Christian.
You are first and foremost a Lutheran. If it is Lutheran presuppositions upon which you approach the Scriptures, then you are a Lutheran first.
If you were first and foremost a Christian, why identify as a Lutheran? Why is Lutheran even relevant? And if you are first and foremost a Christian, why do the other sects identify as Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc? Well, they do so--to separate themselves from the other sects--because they do not all teach the same "Biblical" things, now do they?
Right---you can't answer that--as this isn't the place for that discussion, right? How convenient. Well, just think on it then.
And I am not bringing any "presupposition" when I read the Bible. I have seen many, many Bible verses that clearly teach that we are NOT saved by either works done in righteousness or works of the Law.
Right; because your soteriology--you know----your theology of how redemption works is Lutheran.
I mean--yes--if I believed that we "put on" the righteousness of Christ in a forensic sense, then I guess I would be Lutheran too--and believe that works cannot save. I guess I would read and interpret James and Paul the same way you do.
But Catholicism does not agree with or presuppose Protestant soteriology. For us, the righteousness of Christ is infused into us, such that it is an interior, abiding reality that is truly ours--in an ontological, not just forensic sense.
I have even put down links to where I listed 55 such verses. Ephesians 2:8-9 are only 2 of many such verses. To believe otherwise would be to believe that what Jesus accomplished on the cross wasn't good enough, or complete enough--that Jesus somehow needs us to "do" something to help save ourselves. But if our works could help save us, then that would make us the savior of us, not Jesus--wouldn't it?
See. once again, there is your Lutheran presuppositions shining through as you read Catholic belief and practice---not like a Catholic, but, you guessed it, ..................................a..................................... LUTHERAN!
You see, for Catholics we aren't in competition with Jesus or his work--because for Catholics, it isn't a question of either or, but both and. Because justification means we become part of the body of Christ, our good works are the work of Christ and visa-versa. When God sees our Faith, he sees Christ., When God sees our good works, he sees Christ.
Hence, it isn't a question of adding, substracting, multiplying, dividing, Geometry, Algebra, Calculus, E=MC2 or any math whatso ever.
The question is "Are we joined to Christ as part of his body?" Yes. That being the case, Christ work is our work and our work is Christ work, and that being the case, works are saving. This isn't rocket science, and this isn't the complicated math problem you seem to think it is.
But Jesus cried from the cross, "It is finished!" And one of the meanings of the Greek word for "finished" is "paid in full."
Yes, it is. But here is what you aren't saying: "debt paid" or "paid in full" is not the primary meaning of the word. In fact, when Jesus said "It is finished" what he meant was "It is finished and will forever remain finished." That is the literal rendering of the Greek. It has nothing to do with economics, debts, credit cards, loans, the stock market, taxes, whatever.
What did Jesus finish? His earthy work. "It is finished" simply means that his earthy work is completed. It is not a financial transaction between him and the Father.
Oh--right----Ransom theory of the atonement. That effects how you read "It is finished." And there is an element of truth in the Ransom theory of the atonement. In fact, of the 7 theories, all of them have merits, none of them alone captures the whole mystery of redemption. I would just caution you not to push this theory too far.
Which Jesus most definitely did. He paid fully for not only the guilt of our sins on the cross, but the eternal punishment for them.
Yes, he did. Who said he didn't? Here is the thing you seem to be missing: for Catholics, human works are saving, PRECISELY BECUASE of what Jesus did on the cross, not INSPITE OF what Jesus did on the cross. The cross, redemption, "he paid the price" etc, is the whole reason human works are saving for Catholics.
I dealt with them most adequately. Just because you don't like what I wrote doesn't mean that I what I wrote was "inadequate."
Yes, if you are Lutheran and believe the Lutheran presuppositions your defense of the position was quite well done.
I do not like what you wrote, that is true; but the reason I do not like it, is because I think it is false; not just because I disagree.
