Catholic Nick @CatholicNick

@PensiveJustin @DodgersAndrew I don't see a DM Mail icon on your profile.

@PensiveJustin @DodgersAndrew Note, I was just blocked by the OrthoEnsign guy for discussing Psub, so I can't respond on that thread but can elsewhere like on this same topic here: x.com/i/status/19812…

Catholic Nick @CatholicNick

8 months ago

@rickbrennanjr @DemareGerry The phrase "hand-written ordinances" is a very reasonable way of saying the Mosaic Law itself. This isn't a controversial claim, it's a straightforward interpretation, and fits a common theme (Judaizing). I previously noted how Paul often speaks against the Mosaic Law itself

0 0 0 91 0

@PensiveJustin @CharlesHenryLe3 @TheOrthoEnsign @Traj1884 I addressed this in post a few months ago. See below: x.com/i/status/19812…

Catholic Nick @CatholicNick

8 months ago

@rickbrennanjr @DemareGerry The phrase "hand-written ordinances" is a very reasonable way of saying the Mosaic Law itself. This isn't a controversial claim, it's a straightforward interpretation, and fits a common theme (Judaizing). I previously noted how Paul often speaks against the Mosaic Law itself

0 0 0 91 0

You still aren't doing any exegesis. You're doing some weird mind reading eisegesis on what a Christian might object if they heard some undefined Protestant interpreting the prior 5 chapters and somehow the Catholic view doesn't raise this objection. A Christian thinking their sin might bring about blessings can be derived from just Rom 5:20-21 and isn't unique to Sola Fide or prior chapters. The response in Romans 6:15-16 is basically the same as 6v1 yet it clearly doesn't fit the Protestant view at all, since Paul says they will gain righteousness or will die based on their behavior. So the answer of Paul is that a Christian can certainly still sin and cause grace to abound, but their own salvation will be harmed. The unsaved Opponents in Rom 3:3-5 raised this same objection about their comfortable status in the Old Covenant and they had not yet even read ch3-5 yet, so your claim 6v1 naturally comes only on ch3-5 is even more bizarre, since it's really just a general treatment on "theodicy". Paul is basically now just reiterating it for Christians who might think their own situation is different, but 6v15-16 shows it's not.

What doesn't work? The Christian is now spiritually alive and will die if they turn back to sin. Just because God can bring about good from sin doesn't mean there are no consequences to the sinner. Romans 6v15 is the same line of thinking as 6v1, "15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"

Rom 6v2 says: "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" This means Paul grounds 6v1 in being dead to sin, which is not a forensic category, and thus not Protestant Justification in mind. This dying to sin must have already happened, at the time of Justification. So Paul is not speaking of forensic or imputation going on during Rom 3-5.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this 6v1 up as almost a dodge of addressing the bad exegesus on Rom 4v5. I have no problem addressing Rom 6v1 on a separate post if you make one, stating how you read it and why Catholicism cannot answer it. It can even be in DM if that's easier.

This isn't the NPP, so that's a bad excuse to use. This is the lexical range of meaning and exegesis. If you look at that Rom 4v5 post I made it will show this more clearly. There's a mental block of sorts that refuses to question the bad exegesis and be open to humble submission to God's Word, including having to admit the Protestant scholars were wrong. catholicnick.blogspot.com/2021/09/was-ab…

The irony here is that, while there is truth to this, Protestants have not kept up with the refinement of knowledge, hence why they will not critically examine their own doctrines like Imputation and Romans 4v5. The refinement of knowledge should have these things internally critiqued every now and then, but we don't see that with their key proofs like Rom 4, Eph 2, 2 Cor 5, etc., because those Protestants who know better cannot afford to discuss it too openly.

Life, as in Adam would continue staying alive in the Garden. That is an earthly promise and not about going to Heaven. Now you say the "covenantS of promise" were actually covenants of works, which is now conflating grace and works. This is really all just making up theology according to what sounds good to human ears. Covenants in the Bible are explicit and the terms, consequences, duration, etc, are varied, so they cannot be categorized as Works or Grace. For critical doctrines the principle of Sola Scriptura would have them be very clearly stated in Scripture, not assumed. Sola Scriptura is false because topics like CoW come up and will not have the humility to admit the exegesis is severely lacking. Paul is constantly comparing the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant, which hardly makes sense if there's a CoW that is the real overarching covenant. The very language of Covenant of "Works" comes from reading Paul and thinking works are the problem. So the irony is they borrow "works" from Paul but not "covenant" from Paul. This should be a red flag that there is a problem with the theology or exegesis.

What are the promises of blessings given to Adam for the CoW? The text doesn't mention any. And if each Covenant with Noah, Abraham, David, etc, was "a" Covenant of Works, then you can't speak of "the" Covenant of Works. The promised seed is not a covenant, for it would have been made with Adam (or even the snake) after Adam's disobedience.

You are inserting "covenant," as well as the rules, in places where the inspired text doesn't use the term nor rules. That is not exegesis, that is not deduction, that is not "clear texts". To turn "eat from all trees except one" into a permanent Covenant of Works for all mankind that requires keeping all commands to get into heaven is an abuse of Scripture, especially when Scripture speaks of all sorts of covenants with all sorts of rules and blessings. You are turning "the Bible doesn't have to say it" into making up theological ideas not actually in Scripture and yet claiming to submit to Scripture above all else.

Explain how Rome teaches a Gospel of works. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness says that Jesus kept the law perfectly in our place, doing all the works required of us, and imputed that perfect obedience to us by faith so that God will look at the believer and consider them to have kept the works themselves. That sounds like works based salvation to me.

Not merely that Gen 2 constitutes a covenant, but more specifically that it constitutes a "covenant of works". Even if "don't eat from this tree" was a covenant, that does not equate to "keep all of the ten commandments throughout your life and love God perfectly to be awarded heaven". That is a very different thing.

Genesis 2v16-17 is a command to not eat of one tree. That doesn't equate to a covenant of works of perfect obedience to all the ten commandments and beyond. God tells people to do things in the Bible but that doesn't make it a covenant. Not a deduction and not clear. How about the many texts of Scripture that say clearly "on that day God made a covenant with them". God made a covenant with Phinehas and did not require anything of it, so it must be a Covenant of Grace?

@EddyEkofo @espthememes Simply deduce from which clear texts? Provide three for the CoW so we can evaluate how strong/clear these are.

@EddyEkofo @espthememes Bad example. The Bible uses the term "covenant" many times, for multiple different covenants, yet never for CoW or CoG.

@EddyEkofo @espthememes Still, the Bible doesn't mention "Covenant of Grace" or "Covenant of Works", so making fun of Dispys doesn't change anything.

You mentioned "righteousness isn't merited" but I would say the term "merit" isn't used by Paul and isn't a bad thing in Paul's mind. Rather, Paul is saying earning a wage is fine, but getting a gift or some special treatment is better. The background here is that while keeping the Mosaic Law is worthy of a reward, believing in the Gospel will graciously reward you with more than the Law can offer even though the Mosaic Law is this elaborate covenant. Believing has intrinsic value and very pleasing to God, so it is not an empty hand nor is it that Abraham was wicked and needed to hide behind something else. Further, the Greek term Logizomai does not entail a transfer, so by definition it cannot be speaking of wages or righteousness moving from one place to another.

The irony is that the Judaizer heresy was entirely about not doing, but instead bragging that you were just born into the blessing like a trust fund baby. The works of the Judaizers were an outward flex, so the Sabbath and circumcision were like teenager driving a Ferrari which he did not earn but showed off who his parents are.