OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Paul seems to think that, given that we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God
I think you are referencing Romans 5:1 for this. "Justified therefore through faith, let us keep peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have got by faith access to that grace in which we stand, and let us exult in the hope of the glory of God."
It seems to be saying, with our initial justification caused by faith (in opposite to circumcision) let us act properly and keep peace with God through the grace Jesus has gained for us.
But looking around, it looks like the "Let us" translation is based on some Greek manuscripts, while other Greek manuscripts do not have it as an exhortations. The Vulgate has "iustificati igitur ex fide pacem habeamus ad Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum," which sounds more like an exhortation. Could this be the root of our confusion? The subjunctive seems to be attested to earlier in manuscripts, but both are widespread in the early Church. The official Roman translation used Let Us, and that undoubtedly influenced theology for millennia.
In the absence of knowing what Paul actually wrote here, may I suggest that we both avoid using Romans 5:1 to argue for or against our positions?
But I do think that Abraham must have been justified instantaneously by faith:
Are you still referring specifically to Romans 4:2? Is the Aorist in 4:2 or 4:3? Because Romans 4:2 says, "If Abraham was justified because of his actions, he has reason for glorying; but not before God, since what does the scripture say?" Paul is saying that Abraham was Not justified because he had some innate awesomeness. It doesn't really matter what tense was used when Paul is ironically saying that something Didn't happen that way.
I disagree that the language Paul uses makes the claim that Abraham was justified in a single instant, and this seems to be the basis of your arguments against the Faith/Works explanations that I hold.
Short of us both being ancient Greek scholars I don't know how much more productive our conversation can become. We can both start to appeal to authority, but I think our fundamental difference lies in the specificity of a language that I don't speak (and I'm not sure but I don't think you do either.) Which is disappointing, because I usually mock those who think that the Bible is impossible to understand because it's been a game of telephone/translated too many times.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Trying to nail you down here, if someone followed the law perfectly absent Jesus' death on the cross, however impossible that in itself might be, would that person have made it to Heaven?
If so, I think I understand Protestant's objections to Catholic's veneration of Mary better. Catholics believe Jesus' death on the cross redeems us because Jesus is God. But do Protestants believe His death redeems us because He was sinless (and His divinity was required for Him to be sinless, but it was the sinlessness itself that made redemption possible?)
Just to check—you don't think that Abraham was justified solely by faith, right?
I think James was pretty clear:
"Was not Abraham our father justified by his actions, when he offered up Isaac, his son, on the sacrificial altar? You see that his faith worked with his actions and through his actions his faith was made a thing complete, and so the scripture was fulfilled which says: Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness in him, and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by his acts and not by faith alone."
But the binding of Isaac happened well after Abraham's circumcision, after Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. I think you are incorrect about Abraham becoming justified instantaneously by faith, whatever tenses you might find in Paul.
Yes, Paul seems to disagree with James, and Clement with Clement. But we know that all must go together. Somehow these quotes and concepts didn't seem contradictory to the early Church. No Catholic today would claim that we are justified of ourselves or that we are justified absent an act of divine condescension.
I see three possible ways to reconcile James with Paul and Clement with Clement: (and I'm borrowing from Matthew J. Thomas here)
-
One proposal is that the difference is a matter of timing: while Paul is speaking about the initial reception of justifying grace apart from works, James is talking about the verdict of final justification at the last day, for which works as evidence of faith are essential.
-
Another possibility is that the difference is the kind of works under discussion: while Paul denies that the Torah’s observances can be made a requirement for justification, it is less clear that the good works prescribed by James are also a target of Paul’s objections
-
A third possibility focuses on the nature of faith, which may be more notional in James (a faith such as the demons can have, cf. Jas 2:19), while Paul’s use of the term is more relational and entails fidelity as well (cf. ‘the obedience of faith’ in Rom 1:5, 16:26).
I think all three possibilities are compatible with the Catholic view. Which of these would be compatible with your view? If none, what is your view?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I'm assuming you're treating the covenant referred to here as roughly the same as the Mosaic one? That one definitely does promise life: "the one who does these things shall live by them," which Paul quotes in Galatians.
Do you believe that Jews who followed the Law went to Heaven without Jesus's death, and in fact would have made it to Heaven without Jesus' death? I never heard that position before, but Paul's quote in Galatians does not support it. Galatians 3:11-12: "Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”" The full quote is clear, the law is based on "living by" i.e. performing actions. It's not saying the law provides eternal life.
(I'm going to start using the Lattrimore translation, because I'm noticing a lot of theological language smuggled in when I switch between NRSV and NIV. Lattrimore was a secular Greek translator who is most famous for his excellent translation of the Iliad. He did become Episcopalian towards the end of his life, but this conversion was after he translated the New Testament. I think we're both trying to figure out the words as Paul wrote them, and short of studying Greek this is the best resource I can get.)
Let's go back to Romans. Paul starts Romans off with discussion of Pagan wickedness. Then he broadens it to discuss everyone's (even Jewish) sinfulness.
Romans 2:6-8: Through your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up for yourself anger on the day of anger and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will give to each according to his actions: to those who, through steadfastness in doing good, strive for glory and honor and incorruptibility, he will give everlasting life
This doesn't sound like sole fide.
Then we have Romans 2:12-15 "For those who sinned outside the law will also perish outside the law: and those who sinned while within the law will be judged according to the law. For it is not those who listen to the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but it is those who do what is in the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what is in the law, they, without having the law, are their own law; and they display the work of the law engraved on their hearts;"
So from the beginning, Paul is referencing the Law as referred to Torah observance. Gentiles "do not have the Law", but "display the work of the law engraved on their hearts." Paul seems really concerned with telling Roman Jews that Gentiles are able to do good without being Jewish. Because they are Gentiles they aren't participating in the nation-building or ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law, but rather the natural law or the moral law.
Throughout this, Paul is admonishing the Jewish people in Rome to not boast. They are just as sinful as the Gentile populace.
Now we move to Romans 4. So that I am not accused of ignoring any detail, I will go through section by section and explain how it makes perfect sense from a Catholic view:
1-5: What then shall we say of Abraham, our forefather in the way of the flesh? If Abraham was justified because of his actions, he has reason for glorying; but not before God, since what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness in him. For one who does something, repayment is counted not as grace but as his due; but for one who does nothing, but believes in him who justifies the impious man, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Abraham is the patriarch, the father of the Jewish people. Abraham cannot boast because he had no power in himself to justify himself. Instead, God reaches out to Abraham and (despite some shakiness on Abraham's part) Abraham responds with faith. It is Abraham's response that counts as righteousness. Abraham believing God would give him descendants was a good/just/righteous action - it counts as righteous. It doesn't count as neutral or evil.
God singling Abraham out is a huge grace that Abraham received. Abraham did not deserve God's offer of a covenant. It is Abraham's faith in God that was considered the righteous action.
6-12 So David also says of the blessedness of the man whom God counts as righteous, apart from his actions: Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count. Now, is this blessedness for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised? Since we say the faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness. How then was it counted? In his circumcised or uncircumcised state? It was when he was not yet circumcised, but still uncircumcised. And he received the mark of circumcision, the seal upon the righteousness of that faith he had when he was still uncircumcised; to be the father of all those who are believers through their uncircumcised state so that righteousness could be counted for them, and also to be the father of the circumcised for those who not only have been circumcised but also walk in his footsteps through the faith, which our father Abraham had when he was still uncircumcised.
Abraham was able to achieve one canonically righteous action (his faith in God's promise) before being circumcised. Therefore, the uncircumcised Gentiles can also consider Abraham their Father in Faith (see that this is contrasted to verse 1, Abraham as the forefather in the way of the flesh.) And the circumcised are also supposed to walk in faith just like Abraham.
13-15 For the promise to Abraham, or his seed, that he should be the inheritor of the world, was not on account of the law, but of the righteousness of his faith. For if the inheritors are those who belong to the law, then the faith is made void and the promise is gone; for the law causes anger, but where there is no law there is no lawbreaking.
God told Abraham that the his descendants would inherit before the Torah existed. Abraham's faith was righteous (not imputed righteousness, but unqualified righteous.) It cannot be that only those who follow the Law of Moses will inherit the world, because the law by itself does not justify. "The law causes anger." This ties back to Chapter 3 verse 20: "since through the law comes consciousness of sin." The law only reveals human weakness. No one was ever going to follow the Torah all the way to Heaven.
16-21 Thus (it is) because of faith, and thus by grace, that the promise should hold good for all his seed; not only for him who has the law but for him who has the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all, as it is written: I have made you the father of many nations. It held good in the sight of God, in whom he believed, the God who puts life into the dead and summons into existence the things that do not exist. He against hope believed in the hope that he would become the father of many nations according to what had been said, that is: Thus shall your seed be. And Abraham, without weakening in his faith, knew that his own body was that of a dead man, since he was about a hundred years old, and he knew the dead state of Sarah’s womb, but he was not distracted with unbelief in God’s promise but was strengthened in his belief, giving glory to God and assured that God was able to do as he had promised.
Description of Abraham's act of faith. Restatement that faith is a gift, an unearned grace. Restatement that Abraham is the father of all those who have faith as well as the father of Jews in flesh. There is a little bit of a comparison between God bringing life from Abraham and Sarah's dead bodies and God bringing spiritual life from the spiritually dead Gentiles, but Paul doesn't really elaborate there.
22-25 Thus it was that faith counted as righteousness in him. But it was not written for him alone that it was so counted for him, but also for us for whom it is to be counted, for us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was betrayed for our sins and raised up again for our justification.
Abraham's faith was righteous. God made sure that this passage was included in Genesis so Paul could win this argument with the Romans that the uncircumcised can be saved. I see very clearly the Catholic view of God sending grace, Abraham accepting the grace, and then that action of accepting the grace counting as righteousness.
This whole process is about how Abraham was justified, not his becoming righteous with this as one step of a broader whole (note: an aorist in 4:2, meaning a simple past action.
Abraham was dead when Paul wrote his letter, so whether he was justified or not would have happened in the past, not as something ongoing. But 4:2 is an ironic negation - Abraham wasn't justified because of his action. Also, the aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect. An aorist could mean that the action took years. But however long it took, it's over now because Abraham is dead.
Chemnitz' examination of the council of Trent
All four volumes are $180, do you know which volume or page number you're thinking of?
Alister McGrath is a reputable Evangelical historian. His book on the history of justification - Iustitia Dei - is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject. McGrath writes, "[If] the nature of justification is to be defended, it is therefore necessary to investigate the possible existence of 'forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification...' [This approach] fail in relation to the specific question of the nature of justification and justifying righteousness... A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where not had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
One of the foremost Evangelical scholars on the topic could not find a historical belief in Forensic Justification or the imputed righteousness of Christ. I know that many Protestants believe in a great apostasy. But I personally expect that those who lived closest to Paul's time and spoke Greek in the same cultural context would best understand what Paul's message is. And no one in the Patristic age read Romans and thought, "Forensic Justification."
For example, St. Clement of Rome who was bishop of Rome from 88 AD to 99 AD wrote, "Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works and not our words." (1 Clement 30) This is someone who lived in Rome and likely read the first edition of the letter Paul wrote. This is someone who knew Peter and Paul - Paul references Clement in Philippians 4:3. If Paul was arguing sole fide, why was Luther the first one to understand it?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I'm very hesitant to break out Paul verse by verse and ascribe an individual meaning to each line. Chapters and verses were only delineated many hundreds of years after Paul wrote. He also does not come from the same tradition of writing that we developed, where we write our thesis front and center, then write our supporting evidence, then follow with a conclusion. This can make it hard to understand what the point of any given passage is.
With that said, my reading of Romans chapters three and four would be: The first covenant that God made with Abraham never promised eternal life, theosis, etc. to those who followed it. It did lead to Salvation - out of the Covenant came Jesus - but it does not grant salvation. When people failed to follow the first covenant, they weren't failing to achieve their own salvation. Instead they were merely demonstrating that humankind is weak and sinful.
In your exegesis of Romans 4, it seems to me that you are generalizing things that Abraham did as part of his forming a covenant with God in Genesis 15, into general moral action. I disagree that Romans 4:13 contrasts Faith and the law as opposing each other, but rather Faith preceded the covenant. If you reread Genesis 15 you will see that Paul's referring to it in a very orderly fashion. First you have him quote Genesis 15:6 ("Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.") Then right after that verse in Genesis, God forms the covenant ("On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.")
In Romans 4:18-25, Paul does generalize to the gentiles - because a huge part of his letter to the Romans is to argue that the gentiles do not need to join the old covenant to also join the new. A Christian's faith in Jesus is like Abraham's faith in God's promise - they both start a covenant. He is saying that Gentiles don't need to follow the old covenant to be justified because the old covenant never justified anyone. Unlike the new covenant, the old covenant never promised justification.
I also think we might not have the same terminology when we talk about Righteousness, Salvation, Justification. Sometimes Catholics and Protestants disagree about how much we are disagreeing because we just don't use the same words to talk about the same things. To be clear about the terminology I am using here are some definitions:
Justification - A formative process in which Christians are made righteous over the course of their entire lives. It is a gift from God, unearned, provided by Jesus' death on the cross to all who accept that He is Lord. This is something that can be lost or stalled and then picked up again. It is comparable to being born. It is unearned gift, but there are certain things you can do that hasten your (spiritual or physical) death.
Protestants often define justification as "To be declared righteousness," in a one time event. This dramatically changes how we read any Bible verse with the word "Justification" in it. Instead, Catholics would use the word "Salvation" in places where Protestants commonly use "Justification."
Salvation - Actually getting to Heaven. Not the same thing as Justification.
Righteousness - Correct behavior. Jesus imparts (not imputes) righteousness to us.
In the Catholic view, faith is an unmerited gift from God. Without God providing the grace of faith, there is no human effort that will grant a person faith. Faith leads to Justification, in which Christians become righteous over the course of their lives. At the end of our lives, we reach Salvation through this process of Justification, which we did nothing to earn but do need to participate in lest we lose it anyways.
This is a good video that examines the differences (an similarities) between what Catholics and Protestants believe on Justification.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
In context, isn't "works" the ceremonial Law of Moses?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Aquinas seems to believe that angels can perform psychokinesis to produce physical effects. They can use psychokinesis to make sound waves, alter light, apply force, etc.
He lived in a world where everyone agreed that the mental and spiritual affected the physical on a daily basis.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Why do you think that is not what Western science will discover to be the case?
I'm not a Cartesian Dualist, so I don't have a horse in the race. But to test your hypothesis we would need to see if a non-mental physical substance can interact with ESP particles or if only living minds interact with ESP particles. If you lobotomize someone and remove the ESP sensory organ, do ESP particles still hit it? Or do ESP particles only hit sensory organs attached to a thinking mind?
There are some ways that Quantum Mechanics gets phrased that I wonder if it is touching on this mental issue, but sometimes it just seems to be sloppy phrasing by researchers.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
there would be a bunch of boring guys getting degrees in it by now, explaining how it all works.
It's called parapsychology, and they have a Journal and various research groups in various Universities including the University of Virginia and UC Santa Barabara.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
That aside, I'm actually curious what makes you think "mind" or "soul" or whatever it is you think explains and unifies ESP, free will and supernatural beings wouldn't be "material" in some relevant sense? Like, the material world already has radio waves and magnetism and many other forces that we can't see, but which we see the effects of in our everyday lives. What makes you so sure that ESP, if it exists, wouldn't just be one more invisible force that operates in our material world?
Cartesian Dualism separates mind from matter and attempts to study matter separate from qualia or mental properties. The difference between ESP and Magnetism is that Magnets exist outside of an independent observer. There could have been a universe without life, but still had an electro-magnetic field. A universe without life wouldn't have psychokinesis, ESP, etc, because these are all things that require a mind.
That isn't to say that they couldn't be observed in a scientific and methodological way, nor that the laws governing them couldn't be discovered. But that is why they are typically withheld from the Materialist worldview.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
It's largely a function of how much exposure the kids have gotten in public. In Summer 2020 my family had a habit of walking to an outdoor shopping center, ordering lunch, and eating it outside every Saturday. The first time, my one and two year old girls were fussy. One kept throwing her shoe, and we ended up eating cold food at home. By the return of the rainy season they knew what to expect. We were able to eat a full meal, walk around afterwards, let them run ahead a little.
A month ago my Church had a dinner function. My kids (age 10 months to 6 years) behaved pretty well for an hour, waiting for food, talking with adults who were doing the standard, "what is your age? Where do you go to school?" The baby wanted to be held, but that is to be expected. They ate dinner quickly and with utensils and without spilling an abnormal amount.
But after an hour we had to leave. The event organizers began a speech. Dessert was served. The two year old left his seat and couldn't be coaxed back on. Probably most problematic, the couple next to us commented, "your kids are very well-behaved," in all sincerety, which is a universal signal for kids to start knocking over water cups. We said goodbye and left, with everyone acknowledging that it was probably wise for us to leave and they all said they were thankful we came over to the event.
But if I took the same kids to a place they never have been before, like a theater, I don't expect them to do half as well. We would need to work our way up, first with a movie they have seen before and I can walk out of at any time, then with a clown show or something, eventually the ballet.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Dragon Naturally Speaking has worked in medical environments for a while, and I was able to find a pirated copy at some point.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
That jump from 2019 to 2021 is so jarring.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I mean law schools do
Maybe I don't want to ideologically concede all future lawyers (who also tend to become future lawmakers and judges). I think society as a whole suffers from this DEI bottleneck, even if some people for now can get decent jobs as nurses or plumbers from going to a community college.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Also isn't this problem solved if people just... Not cede territory to the crazy. How is the evaporative cooling so strong here?
Seattle adjusted for Covid hard. So for two months, it was immoral to walk around outside. And then for two years it became immoral to walk around outside without a mask. And going for a walk with a mask gets uncomfortable. So by the time people felt like they could go outside again, the streets were already, percentage-wise, more homeless than not.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
This reminds me of this person with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. He received a Halo to hold his head up and went from bedridden to energetic rather quickly.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I really question his selection choices. I laughed when I saw "Dawkin's Former Right Hand Man" surrounded between "Former Gang Member" and "Former KKK Member."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
He Saves Us is a response from Associate Pastor Jamie Bambrick that I think would have had more weight (though I question their selection choices, with more time\ I'm sure a team could come up with something more inspiring.)
Bambrick changes the emphasis to the transformation that Christianity demands and promises. Such an ad would also be countercultural because it implies it's not great to be a gang leader or a porn star, such that being a former gang leader or a former porn star is a step up.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
It's ostensibly to give the Au Pairs a better standard of living, make sure they're getting a "livable wage" (whatever that means when all their food, utilities, phone, and shelter are being paid for by the host family, and the money they receive is on top of that.) Our Au Pairs have always had more spending money than my husband and I have ever budgeted for ourselves.
I see a lot of Au Pairs complain about the new rules. There is a worry that the opportunity will shrink for most Au Pairs. About 2/3 of host families will be priced out of the new rules. The ones that remain will have a large pool to pick from, and will likely pick the most educated with child-care experience. The 19 year old Au Pairs whose child-care experience comes from raising their three younger siblings and seven cousins will be ignored in favor of the 26 year old college graduate with 4 years of pediatric occupational therapy, who really wants to get their foot in America and this is the first step.
Maybe that's actually good for the United States? Smarter, more dedicated people coming in. But it sucks for me. I probably would not have had the fourth kid had I known the Au Pair system would be wrecked a year in.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I tried working 6 hour days once. The problem is that businesses are bad at dividing how much work to give someone.
I'm responsible for a whole domain. Sometimes it might take 30 hours one week to respond to things in a timely fashion, produce everything that needs to be produced, attend the meetings, etc. Sometimes it take 60 hours. I could tell work, "I'm only working 30 hours, dock my pay accordingly," but I would still be responsible for the same amount of work, I'll just fall behind faster.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
What platform do you use to freelance?
For Au Pair: A shared bathroom is fine. Currently costs are about 35k a year, with about 10k given to the agency, 15k to the Au Pair directly (The minimum is around 10k), and 10k from education (there is a mandatory stipend for them to attend schoool,) increased utilities, food, toiletries, etc. If your kids are older and in school, I think paying the minimum works fine. Some people have Au Pairs drive their school-aged kids to and from school and to extra curriculars.
However, we expect the costs to double if the state department rules go into affect.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
We would need to turn in logs to the regional coordinator. The Au Pair system in the US works through Agencies, you cannot get an Au Pair Visa without going through an Agency. That Agency will need to hire extra people to maintain the level of paperwork that will be required of them. Right now we pay our Agency 10k a year to handle the current paperwork to get the Visa, get the Au Pair in country, work with Embassies, and do the legally required checking up on the Au Pair (she meets with our Area Coordinator once a month in person.) It's expected that the cost of the program might double or triple with the changes.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I'm currently a Project Manager. There are freelance opportunities, but I'm a little hesitant to go that route because I don't want to be in front of a screen while taking care of my kids, I want to be active with them. I crochet while they play sometimes, and they don't mind at all. I think I could manage something like one of these a day without the kids interfering.
If I get on a computer, suddenly all the kids want to sit next to me and watch, talk, and touch things, and I can't PM at the same time.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I've mentioned on here a few times that our family has an Au Pair and I work from home most days. This happy arrangement is going to come to an end and I'm of mixed feelings.
First, for those who don't know, there is a program in the State Department that is designed to connect families with young women across the world who would be interested in taking care of children in exchange for living in America for a year. The host family has to provide a separate room and pay a weekly stipend. It's a "cultural program." As part of it they are supposed to take a couple college courses every year. There is a lot of abuse, but I pay my Au Pair more than the minimum, don't ask her to do more than just keep the kids alive, and buy her whatever she asks for that seems reasonable.
When interviewing Au Pairs (it's a lot like an online dating service, with profile pages and matches) I always asked, "What are you hoping to get out of becoming an Au Pair? What benefit are you looking for?" The answer was almost always, "More experience speaking English." This seems reasonable, as a good American accent probably gives people a huge advantage in business.
Anyways, the State Department is reviewing the Au Pair program, and has proposed a series of rules that will break it for most families. I don't want to count every toothbrush I buy her, or make sure that she only eats $10.88 worth of food every day. Regardless of what is financially feasible, I'm not going to do it. There's just no way to live with someone in your house, monitor them to this extent, and then still trust them with your kids.
But then the question turns to, "Who is going to watch my kids?" I have four kids, ranging from 10 months to 6 years. There is a preschool we send one child to for 1/2 day socialization, and she likes it well enough. I could send the others to their Summer Camp. But the 10 month old would be too young, and daycare for a 1 year old is already booked up for a year.
Then there's the reality that I'm not giving my kids the attention I want to. Work takes over too much. I might technically be off work at 4:30, but someone puts a meeting on my calendar at 5, or I really need to finish these three five emails, and before I know it it's Dinner Time. I have all these worksheets I want to do with my two oldest and practice penmanship (which they really struggle with.) I want to take my kids outside to play. I want to go for walks. But I also want to be held in esteem at work. As long as work is there, I will put off my kids because kids can wait but work can't. But that is a LIE. Kids grow up, and toil is forever.
I don't want to send them off to a church preschool from 7 to 5, and then pick them up, feed them dinner, do homework, and kiss them good night. That's not how I was raised. That's not what I want for my family.
So I will likely become a stay at home Mom, once my Au Pair's contract ends. I'm looking forward to taking my kids to parks, splash pads, libraries, festivals, and other public areas around my city. My city is actually really family friendly. I know it is hard work. I took half a year off work when I had my second child. I know it can be isolating. But I have the example of my mother, who make lots of mom friends and seemed to have a blast when my siblings and I were young. Thinking about making this change fills me with excitement and hope.
The two downsides - and they are huge - is money and the Future. Money is easy enough to explain - we will have less of it. My husband makes enough for us to live on, if we had no debt we would have a good amount left over after all the mandatory bills (food, mortgage, utilities, etc.) Unfortunately, we have debt. There are some student loans that are almost paid off and we are in a payment plan with the children's hospital after three of my children were hospitalized for a cumulative of 27 days, 10 of which were in the ICU. With this debt, we are still able to make due, and live a good quality of life, but we would need to be careful to limit things like how much meat we buy, how many clothes we get the kids, etc. Once the debt is paid off in a couple years, it's all fine. But we will have to live frugally for a couple years, or risk falling into more debt.
The Future one is harder to explain, but I can't stay home with the kids forever. By the time the youngest is 10, if not sooner, I need to go back into the labor force. I think that is where my mother messed up. She put her foot down on her identity as a homemaker, ended up not doing much during the school day, driving us around to sports in the afternoon (until I was able to drive, and then she had even less to do.) The cognitive decline you see retirees experience, she seemed to get when she was 50. She kept the public areas of the house clean, cooked dinner (badly), and otherwise watched Masterpiece Theater. Shortly after I graduated college, my parents divorced. Now she is a real estate agent with no sales and sometimes manages to convince her friends to pay above market rates to clean their house.
I see a few possibilities. I have a Master's degree, and can probably get a certification and find work as a school teacher once the children are in school. I don't have any particular interest in this. I think of schools as enemy territory, so to speak. It would be nice if I could instead home school my kids (I'm not going to leap straight into that, but it's a possibility now.) Maybe I could teach at a Catholic School. The benefit of being a school teacher is obvious, I would be off work most of the same days that my children would be.
The other idea I'm entertaining is to start my own business. I've been thinking up a small catalog of things I could crochet. Things that could only be done by hand, look unique, and would take me less than two hours a piece. I could buy a stamping kit for 1k and sell personalized jewelry. I could lean into the Mommy space, and sell "calming jars" and other kid trinkets.
The idea would be to do something for a few hours a week, just enough to keep a storefront and a tax ID. If I actually turn a small profit I can use to buy a zoo membership or something, that would be a bonus. As the kids get bigger, I can spend more time on it, eventually either actually making it a full time job, or pivoting back into being a wage worker. It seems like it will be easier for me to get hired if I can say I started a small business, rather than I took time off work to care for small kids.
I'm open to any and all suggestions.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
3mo ago
I love America. I love George Washington. I love Thomas Jefferson. I love Betsy Ross. I love our stupid national anthem with notes that most people can't reach. I love the Constitution, and the Liberty Bell, and our National Parks. I love the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. I love our aircraft carriers and our war planes. I love the Grand Canyon and the Bald Eagle. I love supermarkets and farmer's markets. I love our long and fraught journey to secure each citizen the greatest freedoms enjoyed by man on Earth.
I love them in the same way I love my parents, who I didn't choose and aren't necessarily the best, but they raised me as best as they were able. To say that one country is the same as another to me would be to say that one random couple is the same as my parents to me.
Is this something only people raised in America feel, or does anyone else feel that way about their homeland?
Romans 4:3 doesn't say Abraham was justified as a one time thing, it just says that Abraham believed God and this was counted as righteousness. I really don't think you can apply the definiteness of the aorist in 4:2 to the sentiment of 4:3. For example, if I said, "If I was an elephant I would always remember everything. I remember my kid's birthday." I'm saying: I do forget things, I'm not an elephant, but I do remember my kid's birthday. One thing (my kid's birthday) can be tallied into the list of things I remember, but I don't remember everything on account of me not being an elephant. Abraham is not justified (in a single action) an account of him being perfect in himself, but he did do an action that is counted as righteous/just.
If Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 justified him entirely, why didn't his act of faith in Genesis 12:4 do so? For as Hebrew's 11:8 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." So Abraham obeyed God by faith, did not get justified as a single one time action, he believed God later on and was justified then and for always? What was the distinction?
I understand that the words Justification and Righteousness are the same root words in the Greek, just translated into English in whatever word is most intelligible. But just like I used the same word "remember" in both sentences in the Elephant example, someone might use the same word ironically in two different sentences to contrast the two (always remember in the first sentence, simple remember in the second, like aorist justify in the first verse, not-aorist righteous in the second.)
Regarding verses 6-8, of course Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins after repentance. But having sins forgiven does not itself make someone righteous forever afterwards.
For example, Paul is quoting Psalm 32. In Psalm 32, David is repenting of the sins he committed in 2 Samuel 11, murder and adultery. But before David sinned, God called David, "a man after his own heart." So we have a just man, who sins, then repents and is forgiven.
Verse 9 connects the forgiveness of sins with Abraham's state of Circumcision. Abraham was able to have one righteous action while uncircumcised. "The faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness."
Yes, I agree that we shouldn't treat the passage as an unorganized list of propositions. That was my position from the first comment. The purpose of the whole letter is that Abraham is our father in faith and Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to participate in faith and receive Justification from Jesus.
You are trying to read between the lines to come up with a meaning that this passage does not readily appear to have. You are arguing that justification is a one time deal by applying the tense of one sentence to the tense of the subsequent and tying different verses together from different parts of the letter.
St. Paul is refuting the Judaizers, who believed that the Law, an impersonal entity, had the power to give life. The Judiazers were wrong. As Galations 3:21 says, "if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law." (Another verse that supports that the Torah was insufficient to provide salvation by itself.)
The Judaizers in Rome believed rather that one need only obey the law externally, which would obligate God to repay them with eternal life, as an employer pays a worker his wage (Romans 4:4). Arguing against this, St. Paul teaches us we must approach God on a personal level, with faith and sincere contrition for our sins. God will, in turn, graciously forgive us (Psalm 32), infuse us with supernatural virtues, and credit them to our account as righteousness.
Faith is the foundation and the root of all justification. Without faith, no works will justify. However, this does not preclude the possibility that God might reckon the believer's faith to him as righteousness again at some other point in his life. Just looking at Abraham we see justification in Genesis 12:4, Genesis 15:6, Genesis 22. There are other virtues, such as Hope and Charity, which God might credit to a believer's account as well, after that first act of justification through Faith has been accomplished.
Do you believe that the intention of Paul in these verses was to argue against a group of people who believed Justification was a continuous process? Or was Paul's intention in these verses to argue against a group of people who believed Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to participate in the sacrifice of Jesus? I think you would acknowledge the latter, but say that the words Paul is using implies that he believes Justification was a one-time event. If that is the case, I think I'm reading the purpose of the passage as a whole.
More options
Context Copy link