Wow! There you go interpreting scripture. It doesn't say "Jewish law". Was James also talking about the "work of Jewish law"? You can't have it both ways. So which is it? Either both Paul and James were talking about "work of Jewish law" or they were not. Enlighten us.
Romans 4:5 speaks of someone who "does not work" and later applies it to Abraham prior to his circumcision. So then "work" [there] is a work of Jewish law.
Circumcision is work of Jewish law.
"Judgement" does not always include accusation of wrongdoing.
LOL.
To my knowledge, this interpretation of Rm. is not infallible or indisputable teaching, nor that Paul here is dealing with the same thing as James in cp. 2 (below*). While Paul refers to Abraham being justified before circumcision to disallow justification on the basis of the merit gained by law-keeping (though circumcision proceeded the actual giving of the law), yet the apparent reason for the law being that which is contrasted with justification b y faith to him that worketh not is because, as pointed out before,
"if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
The law was the epitome of all systems of salvation obtained by the merit of law-keeping, that by good works one becomes good enough to be with God, as Rome teaches. Abraham had done works before God counted him righteous because he believed God to do what he could not do, as must we under the law/salvation by moral worthiness, that is, to become good enough to be with God.
However, thank God He can cleanse and declare us justified as he did with the penitent publican and so-called "good thief" (Lk. 18, 23) the moment we believe , even though they would have sinned again if they lived any longer. If being in Christ and having eternal life depended upon attaining and dying as perfect in obedience, then one would be back under the Law, which Catholicism basically does, with added moral perfection of character added, but which claims to offer more grace so that one may attain this moral perfection needed to enter Heaven.
Which necessitates purgatory, without which most all Catholics would be excluded from Heaven according to their theology, yet not in Hell as they are neither good enough for Heaven nor bad enough for Hell. However, no one can really become good enough to be with God, and if salvation is based upon moral perfection, then those who lack it are only fit for Hell. Incorporating the atonement into this fails to help in the long run as it only provides for forgiveness and more grace to attain what the law and RC soteriology demands, but will not make one morally good enough in character. If it was sufficient to simply die forgiven then that would be obtained thru faith, not works, as is the positional righteous status God gives to those who believe, but who are not morally perfect in character.
To be sure, holiness as an attribute of faith, meaning a faith that effects holiness (according to grace given) is necessary to see God, as without it then it is no faith. However, both the the penitent publican and so-called "good thief" (Lk. 18, 23) and the unGodly who worketh not were justified by faith, and wherever the Bible manifestly speaks of the postmortem condition of the believers, or post resurection, it is always with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff' 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3;2)
And indeed, the moment one believes then his heart is purified by faith, which faith is counted for righteousness, and he is washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God, (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved and made to sit together with Christ in Heavenly places. (Eph. 1:5; 2:6)
This is all on Christ's expense and righteousness.
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (Romans 3:25-27)
It is impossible to read another system of salvation by works, earning Heaven thru the attainment of practical moral perfection of character, even if stipulated as being achieved thru grace, and Titus 3:5 broadly excludes "works which we have done" as not being salvific.
But i see these holy effects are justificatory in the sense of testifying to being a believer, and fit to be rewarded for what faith has effected, which God in unmerited grace as we owe God everything, and never would have even accepted Him unless God convicts, draws, opens hearts, and grants repentant faith, so that the soul can believe, (Jn. 16:9; Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) doing what he otherwise would not and could not do. And who then works in us to motivate and enable us to obey Him.
But which still does not make us perfect enough to be with God, nor does suffering the loss of rewards (1Co. 3;8ff) when Christ returns make us so (which some RCs imagine is purgatory) In fact, perfection of character tested virtue is not merely accomplished by suffering, but in this world with its trials and temptations.
Instead, just as the dying contrite criminal went to be with the Lord though surely not attaining moral perfection of character (and his only work was confessing Christ despite his condition), so also those who believe hold the beginning of their confidence/faith fim unto the end, (Heb. 3:6,14) repenting when they realize they have not, have eternal life now and will be with the Lord at death or at His return.
That i would always hold most firm confidence in Christ!
Catholic Encyclopedia on James vs.Paul:Catholic exegetes have become more and more convinced that the Epistle in question, so remarkable for its insisting on the necessity of good works, neither aimed at correcting the false interpretations of St. Paul's doctrine, nor had any relation to the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles. On the contrary, they believe that St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact — already emphasized by St. Paul — that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides formata) possesses any power to justify man (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2), whilst faith devoid of charity and good works (fides informis) is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification (cf. James 2:17 sqq.).
According to this apparently correct opinion, the Epistles of both Apostles treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, while St. Paul intends to show that neither the observance of the Jewish Law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of any value for obtaining the grace of justification (cf. Bartmann, "St. Paulus u. St. Jacobus und die Rechtertigung", Freiburg, 1897). — Catholic Encyclopedia>Justification; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
The term you use, “Jewish Law,” is ambiguous.
Jews were known to follow both Torah, and the true “Jewish Law,” the Takanot and Ma’asim of the Pharisees.
Even the terms “commandments,” and “ordinances” can be ambiguous, and it is necessary to carefully examine the text in many cases, especially in Paul’s epistles.
In the case of James, it is safe to infer that he spoke of true Torah based acts of love arising out of spiritually guided faith. Its just not that easy with Paul, as his writings covered a much more vast array of human actions.
When he spoke to the Galatians he was clearly speaking of the pollutions injected by the Pharisees, but when he spoke to the Corinthians in chapter 11, he was very obviously speaking of the commandments that he personally taught them.
.