Conversion from Roman Catholicism to Biblical Christianity

Well, this has never worked before but I’ll give it a try anyway.

I hope no one is jumping to the conclusion that "it isn't working, because the opponents are too dense/stupid/blind/etc., or any other self-serving, arrogant assumption...

To the GREEK, that the NT was written in.

Indeed, it was! Full points! :)

The word for *flesh* is the same in BOTH verses.

All right... now, let's do a logical exercise. State your case in terms of a logical deduction/syllogism, so that I'm clear what you think this proves. In other words, tell me--step by step, filling in all necessary "suppressed premises"--what your starting assumptions are, and what you think the logical conclusion is.

Can you do that, for me?

[paladinan]
As to your question: all mediation between God and man is done by Jesus alone... but Jesus Himself enacts that mediation through His Body, which is the Church. The extent to which we can mediate for one another is precisely the extent to which we are incorporated in the Body of Christ.

[HossB86]
Uh. No. There is one mediator between God and Man.

...just as "there is none righteous... not one" (Romans 3:10)--unless you count St. John the Baptist (Mark 6:20); his parents, Sts. Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6), St. Simeon (Luke 2:25), Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50), and so on. "None" means "none", after all... right? (See here for the Greek analysis of the words--they're all the very same word, "dikaios", with varying case endings for varying parts of speech.)

...just as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)--unless you count unborn children (including those at the zygote and blastocyst stages), infants, children below the age of reason, adults with severe mental disabilities, etc. "All" means "all", after all... right?

... just as we are to "call no man on earth your father" (Matthew 23:9)--unless you count St. Paul ("For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." [1 Corinthians 4:15]), St. Stephen ("Brethren and fathers, hear me [...]"), or the Lord Jesus, in a parable of His ("Father Abraham, have mercy upon me..." [Luke 16:24]). "No man" means "no man", after all... right?

Now... are you going to supply me with some tortured explanation of how these words don't mean what they say? ;)

One mediator between God and Man. Mankind is part of the body of Christ (at least those who are saved by grace through faith)

But not faith ALONE. Just saying. :)

so those who are receiving mediation by Christ cannot extend mediation to another that Christ alone can give!

All right: there's the initial assertion. Now: why not? To my ears, that sounds analogous to someone saying, "Jesus can't pray to anyone, because He's God." What is there in the intrinsic nature of those who are receiving mediation that they CANNOT extend mediation (albeit a subordinate one)?

James 2 has been misquoted and twisted by Rome.

Easily said, not easily proven, FRiend...

Faith saves.

Of course, it does! Every faithful, well-informed Catholic knows and believes that incontrovertible fact. But faith ALONE does not save... or else St. James (along with the Holy Spirit) is simply lying in James 2, which I--for one--refuse to believe.

Works are a result of faith.

Yes, and no... but they're certainly not "dispensible" re: justification and salvation. Faith without works is dead, and we are justified by works--NOT by faith ALONE. (I suppose I should check: do you have James 2:24 in your Bible? What are the words, exactly?)

Again, let's visit the thief on the cross. What works had he done? He was being crucified to death for being a thief! I don't think that qualifies as what Rome considers "saving works."

Of course not! Sins are not "saving works". But St. Dismas's case was an extraordinary situation, as I discussed in the thread about 'sola Scriptura'; in cases where only a short time is available, "works" can be as humble as the effort needed to endure one's suffering patiently for the sake of Christ, or to choose to trust Him with everything you have. ("Believe" is a *verb*, after all... it's a "work", albeit one which ordinarily requires corporal or spiritual works of mercy to accompany it in order for it to be "alive and saving", cf. James 2, Matthew 25, etc.)

His FAITH saved him. Faith provided to him from above.

That's true... but not faith ALONE. His ability to "act" was severely limited... but he did what he could. (If anyone suggests that bearing one's sufferings patiently is neither hard nor meritorious, I'd ask them to think again. Come to think of it, Protestantism really doesn't know what to do with suffering, in general. Count the number of times you've heard a Protestant pastor or speak expound on Colossians 1:24, for example, to see what I mean.)

Well, you need to keep reading it over and over and over. And praying for the Holy Spirit to open your heart, eyes and mind to God's truth.

:) ...and I should do that because I don't yet agree with you? I assure you, the practice of praying for light when reading the Scriptures is something Catholics have done for at least 1400-1500 years before Protestantism ever came to be. I do so; my wife (who's far holier than I) does so. I do plan to keep reading it, over and over (I'd have done that, even if I'd never met you online), and I do plan to keep praying for light, over and over... if that makes you feel better!

[paladinan]
She was in need of a savior; but she was not a sinner.

[HossB86]
Really? If she was sinless, she needed no savior.

That does not follow. "Saving" by redemption and forgiveness is one method; but "saving" by prevention is another (albeit one unique to the Blessed Virgin). If you were to stop a burglar from shooting me, I'd be just as eager to thank you for "saving my life" as I would be if you'd been a surgeon who operated successfully on me AFTER I'd been shot by that burglar.

how about Romans 3

See above.

"Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Re-read that passage. Catch the part(s) about justification by faith apart from works of the law?

Yes. You might jump over and catch my comment about that referring to the "Law" (Mitzvot) of the Old Covenant, on the "sola Scriptura" thread.

That Christ is put forth as a propitiation by his blood for us to receive by faith? What about faith and works? If it's so essential, why is it that it doesn't appear every time faith is mentioned?

Come, now... that's a mere fallacy of appeal to silence, which doesn't fly. One mention (e.g. James 2, Matthew 25, Revelation in multiple places about being judged by works/deeds) is worth a million silences. In fact, as an exercise: look at every last reference to the Bible talking about the final judgment... and see what criteria are used to judge those who stand before God. Hint: it always involves something which St. James emphasizes...

Because works don't save.

Not ALONE, no... since that would be the heretical idea of Pelagianism (condemned by the Catholic Church, almost a thousand years before Luther was born). I'd gently suggest that the word "alone" is what causes most of the trouble in Protestant theology... They don't add to our salvation.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Salvation is a boolean value (true/false), not a graduated scale; how can anything "add" to it, in any way?

Faith saves.

It does. It just doesn't save ALONE. (Haven't I said that before?)

[paladinan]
(?!) Pardon? Why do you say that omniscience is required in order to intercede for someone? Neither logic nor Scripture say anything of the sort.

[HossB86]
Really?? How does Mary hear the prayer of millions of "faithful Catholics" every single day? Only God is capable of that!

Heaven is in eternity (i.e. outside of time), not in time; eternity is not simply "an infinite string of years", but it's completely OUTSIDE of time altogether. No one in eternity "waits" for anything, or "remembers" anything; everything is present in one, absolute "NOW". To suggest that omniscience is needed to address more than one concern from Heaven is akin to saying that omniscience is needed to play more than one note on a piano at the same time; one who is ABOVE and BEYOND the flow of time has all eternity in which to contemplate each and every concern. There's no "rush" or danger of being "overwhelmed".

Logic nor scripture say anything of the sort about Mary being a mediatrix, sinless, assumed bodily to Heaven -- the Catholic Cult speaks of it in scripture's silence and calls it "Holy Tradition." But it's NOT scriptural. It's made out of whole cloth.

Now, I have to stop you, here: in your defense of "faith alone", you appealed to the silence of Scripture (despite St. James saying that we are NOT justified by faith alone--which is as clear a condemnation of the idea as anyone would like... but I digress); but now, you object to it here? Where does Scripture ever mention even one sin of the Blessed Virgin? Plenty of sins were mentioned regarding the other disciples, yes? Put your money where your mouth, is, then, and show me where Scripture highlights any sin on her part. Otherwise, you're left with mere opinion and speculation, based on a hyper-fastidious reading of verses which are plainly not to be taken at reductionist face-value. You might as well look for a fresh coat of varnish on Jesus when He called Himself a "gate" (cf. John 10:9)!

So... instead of all the other sturm and drang,

:) Full points for drama, double points for drama in a foreign language!

explain how a sole mediator can have subordinate mediators?

See above, re: "call no man father", "no one is righetous", "all have sinned".

You're asking me to define mediator

I am. Are you going to take me up on that?

I asked you how you reconcile one vs. many?

See above.

Define "one" -- and then try to explain in some tortured manner that "one" is not one but many..."

:) "Tortured." Now, where have I heard that, before...?

Waiting...

I commend your patience! (Real life intrudes again, right now, in fact. Back when I have time...!) Hoss

...just as "there is none righteous... not one" (Romans 3:10)--unless you count St. John the Baptist (Mark 6:20); his parents, Sts. Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6), St. Simeon (Luke 2:25), Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50), and so on. "None" means "none", after all... right? (See here for the Greek analysis of the words--they're all the very same word, "dikaios", with varying case endings for varying parts of speech.)

They were sinners. Each and every one. Their faith saved them... FAITH. But they were sinners. Born that way. Conceived that way. None righteous...not one MEANS what it says. Sorry. But it does. Rome's explanation once again falls short of truth.

Now... are you going to supply me with some tortured explanation of how these words don't mean what they say? ;)

Firstly, I've said nothing about father. You've obviously confused me with someone else - secondly, it does mean what it says... it's God's word after all....

But your explanation above is still tortured -- and wrong. Sorry.

Now: why not?

Hmmm. Maybe... because God said so??? There is ONE mediator between God and Man -- not some, not a few, not many, and certainly no subordinates listed.... that's why not. Why does Rome think it can say there IS a thing that God says doesn't exist? Rome trumps God? That's why it's a cult.

Easily said, not easily proven, FRiend...

RE: James 2: I defer to Dr. R.C. Sproul:

"Justification - Paul and James Easily Reconciled

"In Romans 3:28 Paul says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." In James 2:24 we read, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." If the word justify means the same thing in both cases, we have an irreconcilable contradiction between two biblical writers on an issue that concerns our eternal destinies. Luther called "justification by faith" the article upon which the church stands or falls. The meaning of justification and the question of how it takes place is no mere trifle. Yet Paul says it is by faith apart from works, and James says it is by works and not by faith alone. To make matters more difficult, Paul insists in Romans 4 that Abraham is justified when he believes the promise of God before he is circumcised. He has Abraham justified in Genesis 15. James says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" (James 2:21). James does not have Abraham justified until Genesis 22.

This question of justification is easily resolved if we examine the possible meanings of the term justify and apply them within the context of the respective passages. The term justify may mean (1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of his law or (2) to demonstrate or vindicate.

Jesus says for example, "Wisdom is justified of all her children" (Lk 7:35 KJV). What does he mean? Does he mean that wisdom is restored to fellowship with God and saved from his wrath? Obviously not. The plain meaning of his words is that a wise act produces good fruit. The claim to wisdom is vindicated by the result. A wise decision is shown to be wise by its results. Jesus is speaking in practical terms, not theological terms, when he uses the word justified in this way.

How does Paul use the word in Romans 3? Here, there is no dispute. Paul is clearly speaking about justification in the ultimate theological sense.

What about James? If we examine the context of James, we will see that he is dealing with a different question from Paul. James says in 2:14, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James is raising a question of what kind of faith is necessary for salvation. He is saying that true faith brings forth works. A faith without works he calls a dead faith, a faith that is not genuine. The point is that people can say they have faith when in fact they have no faith. The claim to faith is vindicated or justified when it is manifested by the fruit of faith, namely works. Abraham is justified or vindicated in our sight by his fruit. In a sense, Abraham's claim to justification is justified by his works. The Reformers understood that when they stated the formula, "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.""

R. C. Sproul - Knowing Scripture; InterVasity Press, p. 83, 84"

Seems fairly easy to explain. And proven. Or, maybe this:

Matthew Henry's commentary on the verses in question: Sorry about the formatting -- this is the way it was presented....

"2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls? Can this faith save him? All things should be accounted profitable or unprofitable to us, as they tend to forward or hinder the salvation of our souls. This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith. There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, ver. 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works. And to have to deny his own reason, affections, and interests, is an action fit to try a believer. Observe here, the wonderful power of faith in changing sinners. Rahab's conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle. By faith any thing we do is really good; as done in obedience to God, and aiming at his acceptance: the root is as though it were dead, when there is no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits; and we must see to it that we have both. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it. There is no middle state. Every one must either live God's friend, or God's enemy. Living to God, as it is the consequence of faith, which justifies and will save, obliges us to do nothing against him, but every thing for him and to him."

Again, understandable and clear. Not tortured and misleading.

Of course, it does! Every faithful, well-informed Catholic knows and believes that incontrovertible fact. But faith ALONE does not save... or else St. James (along with the Holy Spirit) is simply lying in James 2, which I--for one--refuse to believe.

Ephesians 2 says: "2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.[b] 4 But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

This in no way contradicts James -- James does not say Faith AND works save... he says works are the FRUIT of faith -- and that works without faith shows that there is no faith. No faith? No salvation. It's simple. God's word does not contradict itself. It's Rome's heretical and false teaching that contradicts God's word that has led so many people down the wide path of destruction.

Now... Mediator. Let's see:

According to Dictionary.com, a Mediator does the following:
"1. to settle (disputes, strikes, etc.) as an intermediary between parties; reconcile. 2. to bring about (an agreement, accord, truce, peace, etc.) as an intermediary between parties by compromise, reconciliation, removal of misunderstanding, etc. 3. to effect (a result) or convey (a message, gift, etc.) by or as if by an intermediary."

Easy definition? Christ. As stated by God. What does God say about Mary being a mediatrix?

I asked you how you reconcile one vs. many?

See above.

See above fails. Now, define one. And explain how that differs when God says that there is ONE mediator between God and Man, and that mediator is Christ and how Rome says one means Christ AND Mary?

Sounds suspiciously like faith AND works false-doctrinal creep.

Hoss

...just as "there is none righteous... not one" (Romans 3:10)--unless you count St. John the Baptist (Mark 6:20); his parents, Sts. Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6), St. Simeon (Luke 2:25), Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50), and so on. "None" means "none", after all... right? (See here for the Greek analysis of the words--they're all the very same word, "dikaios", with varying case endings for varying parts of speech.)

They were sinners. Each and every one.

That is almost certainly true... but you've evaded my point, completely. My point is that you're taking "SOLE mediator" (which, without any further context, would certainly lead someone to the usual primary definition of "only, no others at all, period"--I'm not saying that that interpretation is *crazy*, or anything... just incorrect and short-sighted and neglectful of context), and running off with a face-value, reductionist interpretation of it... but you haven't done so (on this thread, at least!) with other verses of Scripture which don't fit the Protestant narrative. In fact, one of those cases where your comments do NOT take the "face-value, minimalist" interpretation is glaringly ironic! More on that, below.

Their faith saved them... FAITH.

Right... I agree. But not faith ALONE. (How many times have I told you that?) This, in fact, is the "glaring irony" of which I spoke, earlier; you make a great deal of "hay" out of the idea of "sole" (cf. sole mediator)... but your argument pulls "sola" (cf. sola Scriptura) out of thin air, especially when talking about James 2:24, which flatly contradicts the idea! (More accurately, Luther pulled it out of thin air, and you inherited it). Either "alone" means what it says, or it doesn't... and--forgive me--quoting R.C. Sproul doesn't really help your case, since he's making the very same mistake (and lapses into some serious double-talk, in the paragraph which you quote; I'll explain, below). Besides: "I'm right, because R.C. Sproul said so" wouldn't be a good argument (fallacious appeal to authority)... and I trust you aren't doing that.

But they were sinners. Born that way. Conceived that way. None righteous...not one MEANS what it says. Sorry. But it does. Rome's explanation once again falls short of truth.

All right. Now: please explain what sins are committed by, for example, unborn children. Then, please explain how unborn children (and others of like mental ability) who die could possibly attain Heaven, since they have manifested no "saving faith".

[paladinan]
Now... are you going to supply me with some tortured explanation of how these words don't mean what they say? ;)

[HossB86]
Firstly, I've said nothing about father. You've obviously confused me with someone else -

Where did I ever suggest that you said anything about "father"? I mentioned that case to you because it's an example of how literalistic, face-value, reductionistic interpretation of Biblical words (such as "sole") can be utterly mistaken, if one neglects the context (both proximate [i.e. the surrounding verses and book], remote [i.e. the entire Bible], and others [e.g. knowledge of ancient idiom, etc.]). No, I've not confused you for anyone else (which'd be rather hard to do, frankly... :) ).

While we're on the topic, though: what DO you have to say about the seemingly absolute prohibition against "calling anyone on earth your father" in Matthew 23:9? Jesus never countermands or qualifies that, so far as I can tell... and only St. Paul's and St. Stephen's apparent "disobedience" to that command--and the Holy Spirit's willingness to allow those apparent cases of "disobedience" into Scripture, unchallenged (and arguably Christ's own violation of it... though He could get off on a technicality, since Abraham wasn't "on earth"! :) )--forces anyone to reconsider the face-value interpretation of the "call no one on earth your father". That's rather analogous to your "sole" example, I think.

secondly, it does mean what it says... it's God's word after all....

Then you'll have to explain the discrepancies, above (and I could list several more, if you like). My explanation for this state of affairs is this: "God's Word definitely means hat it says, but HossB86 has misunderstood what it says and what it means, in this particular case".

But your explanation above is still tortured -- and wrong. Sorry.

:) No need to apologize; just explain why you think that's true (in consideration of what I've just told you).

[paladinan]
Now [re: the claim that those receiving mediation cannot be mediators, themselves]: why not?

[HossB86]
Hmmm. Maybe... because God said so??? There is ONE mediator between God and Man -- not some, not a few, not many, and certainly no subordinates listed.... that's why not.

First, I was (in addition to everything else) questioning the apparent assertion that there's some sort of logical deduction which says: "I'm receiving mediation; therefore, I cannot mediate"... which is nonsense. (It's akin to saying, "I'm receiving financial aid, so I can't possibly help anyone else in need.")

Second, see above, re: the danger of face-value, context-free, reductionist interpretations of isolated Scriptures.

Why does Rome think it can say there IS a thing that God says doesn't exist?

God never says that it doesn't exist. Some Protestants, using faulty reasoning, incorrectly "deduce" that it doesn't exist. In fact, the Greek text doesn't even say "sole"--it says "ONE" (GK; "Hen, Heis" = the number "1", used in an assortment of ways, often not indicating exclusivity (I'm a bit familiar with the word, since it comes into play in Geometry, when [for example] naming polygons with a number of sides greater than 10... e.g. "11-sided polygon = hendecagon"). Scripture uses that word to mean "one, exclusively" (cf. Mark 12:29--"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is One."), or "one, among many" (cf. Matthew 5:29--"it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell"); a simplistic reading of, "Oh, it says 'ONE', so it must be exclusive!" doesn't work, here.

Here's a little exercise, to illustrate the flawed point behind, "oh, I know what it says, because there it is... in black and white!":

"I walked to the end of the road."

So... are you absolutely sure you have my meaning? It's a very simple English sentence, with no complicated words... so: do you know exactly what I mean? Let's find out.

When I said it, I may have meant emphasis on the first word: "*I* walked to the store"...and not someone else.

...or I could have meant, "I WALKED to the store"...as opposed to running, driving, etc.

...or I could have meant, "I walked TO the store"...as opposed to walking AWAY from it.

...or I could have meant, "I walked to THE store"...indicating either that there's only one store, or that it's a store of extra importance--cf. Jesus saying to Nicodemus, "You are THE teacher (Gk: "ho didaskolos", definite article) of Israel, and you do not know these things? (John 3:10) Are we to assume that there were no other teachers AT ALL in Israel?

...or I could have meant, "I walked to the STORE"...as oppose to walking to the bowling alley, etc.

If you'll let me quote myself from earlier: "Some things which seem absolute, at first glance, are shown to be quite different, when given the proper context."

Rome trumps God?

No. God established the Roman Catholic Church... and logic trumps error.

That's why it's a cult.

(*tsk*) Ad hominems just make one seem less professional...

RE: James 2: I defer to Dr. R.C. Sproul:

I'd be curious as to how you could prove (from Scripture alone) that R.C. Sproul is authoritative... but I digress. :) He's also the one who called the Bible "a fallible collection of infallible books" (i.e. he doesn't think there's any certain way to know which books belong in Scripture)...

"Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.” (R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, 58)

You might want to check to see whether you believe that, before you offer him as a decisive authority on Scripture. Just saying.

"In Romans 3:28 Paul says, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." In James 2:24 we read, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." If the word justify means the same thing in both cases, we have an irreconcilable contradiction between two biblical writers on an issue that concerns our eternal destinies. Luther called "justification by faith" the article upon which the church stands or falls.

Do you note that Luther's statement is help up as an unquestioned axiom? But moving on...

"The meaning of justification and the question of how it takes place is no mere trifle. Yet Paul says it is by faith apart from works,

No. St. Paul says that it is by faith, apart from works OF THE LAW. Any Scripture scholar would know that this refers to the Torah... and especially the 613 Mitzvot of the Old Covenant (cf. "the law and the prophets" (John 1:45, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:40, etc.)

...and James says it is by works and not by faith alone. To make matters more difficult, Paul insists in Romans 4 that Abraham is justified when he believes the promise of God before he is circumcised. He has Abraham justified in Genesis 15. James says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" (James 2:21). James does not have Abraham justified until Genesis 22.

That last statement is an unwarranted assumption, apparently based on a "justification is a unique, one-time event" mentality (which seems specific to certain types of Reform and Evangelical Protestantism), and in an idea that there's a "one-to-one" correlation between a *single event* and "justification". It's quite possible to be "justified" by many things in concert (all dependent upon the grace of God, of course)... which is exactly my point. We ARE justified by faith. We are ALSO justified by WORKS... or else St. James simply lies. The only thing which seems to drive Dr. Sproul's reasoning is a desire to avoid Roman Catholic teaching... which might be understandable, given the biases which he inherited from his forefathers, but it's hardly logical.

This question of justification is easily resolved if we examine the possible meanings of the term justify and apply them within the context of the respective passages. The term justify may mean (1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of his law or (2) to demonstrate or vindicate.

Do you see the qualifying terms: "MAY mean [...], etc.? On the one hand, it's a reasonable thing to do at the beginning of an attempted logical argument (to avoid outstripping one's data); but unless that "MAY" is eventually replaced by a CERTAINTY, one is left with illogical mush.

Jesus says for example, "Wisdom is justified of all her children" (Lk 7:35 KJV). What does he mean? Does he mean that wisdom is restored to fellowship with God and saved from his wrath? Obviously not. The plain meaning of his words is that a wise act produces good fruit. The claim to wisdom is vindicated by the result. A wise decision is shown to be wise by its results.

Fair enough. (I do wish that Protestants would use that generous interpretive spirit when looking at "call no man on earth your father", "all have sinned", etc.)

How does Paul use the word in Romans 3? Here, there is no dispute. Paul is clearly speaking about justification in the ultimate theological sense.

No argument, here.

What about James? If we examine the context of James, we will see that he is dealing with a different question from Paul. James says in 2:14, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James is raising a question of what kind of faith is necessary for salvation.

This is a glaring error. It's not a "different question" at all, since St. James plainly deals with the question of "being saved". Beyond this, that last sentence is a raw assumption; here are at least two possible ideas which would fit the facts of the case:

"Faith cannot save if it is not the type of faith which produces works as a by-product."

"Faith cannot save if it is not accompanied by [good] works."

With all due respect: the second fits St. James's statement precisely, without the extra extrapolations about "by-products" (which is a Protestant gloss). Beyond this, the Protestant "corollary" of "anyone can be saved by faith, even without works" is soundly shot down by St. James... especially since St. Paul is plainly talking about works OF THE LAW (as he says, repeatedly).

He is saying that true faith brings forth works. A faith without works he calls a dead faith, a faith that is not genuine.

Ironically enough, he's correct on this point. Had he said this, and nothing else, I'd have no argument.

The point is that people can say they have faith when in fact they have no faith. The claim to faith is vindicated or justified when it is manifested by the fruit of faith, namely works. Abraham is justified or vindicated in our sight by his fruit. In a sense, Abraham's claim to justification is justified by his works.

Interesting idea. So... can someone INNOCENTLY (and sincerely) claim that he has faith, but be mistaken? If so, then how would one ever know that one is "saved", until it's too late... especially since Evangelicals deny that works are absolutely necessary for the salvation of anyone (and the person couldn't use the presence or absence of good works as a sure diagnosis)? Either the presence of works is required for justification, or it isn't... and that's the main bone of contention between Catholics and Evangelicals, here. If a Protestant "has faith" but doesn't show forth any good works, and is not saved thereby... then how is this different from the Catholic position? How is this not a "distinction without a difference"?

The Reformers understood that when they stated the formula, "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.""

This, with all due respect, is absolute nonsense. The first part is pure invention (and unscriptural, to boot), and the second part is true (but the pure negation of the first part). And you called *my* argument "tortured"? :)

Seems fairly easy to explain. And proven.

I can't possibly imagine how anyone could reasonably say that.

Or, maybe this: Matthew Henry's commentary on the verses in question: Sorry about the formatting -- this is the way it was presented....

No worries... been there! Formatting is what takes at least 50% of the time for me (personally), when writing replies like this, actually... it's a bit of an annoyance. But... as my grandmother used to say, I "offer it up!"

"2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls;

Do you see the raw opinion inserted in the passage? "No doubt, true faith alone [...] saves their souls..."; it's presented as an unquestioned axiom, when it's nowhere in Scripture (which was your complaint about the Assumption of Mary, etc., right?), and it's nowhere proven. That horse won't run, FRiend.

This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, is not faith.

Hm. I'd gently point out that several Protestants on this board have already disagreed (verbally, and strongly) with that statement... but let's go on:
There is no way to show we really believe in Christ, but by being diligent in good works, from gospel motives, and for gospel purposes. This is getting interesting! That's Catholic teaching, right there!

Men may boast to others, and be conceited of that which they really have not. There is not only to be assent in faith, but consent; not only an assent to the truth of the word, but a consent to take Christ. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart.

Good grief! Preach it, brother! Get that man into an RCIA class; he's sounding more Catholic by the minute! (Get him into a GOOD, ORTHODOX RCIA class, BTW, not a loopy, liberal one... as is, sadly, the case in many USA Catholic parishes...)

That a justifying faith cannot be without works, is shown from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Faith, producing such works, advanced him to peculiar favours. We see then, ver. 24, how that by works a man is justified, not by a bare opinion or profession, or believing without obeying; but by having such faith as produces good works.

Argh... he was so close! But he veered off into a flat contradiction on James 2:24, and inserted "new words" into the text, left and right (which many Protestants on this board have warned against, as being forbidden)! James 2:24 says, with crystal clarity, that we are justified by works; no matter how badly anyone wants to deny or dislike or reject that fact, the fact remains. It isn't right to try to whitewash over it, for the sake of one's preconceived (Luther-based) notions.

Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead;

And now, he NAILS it, again! Yes! Works without faith are dead works (cf. the Church's condemnation of Pelagianism--look that term up, when you get a moment). We are not justified by works ALONE, nor does St. James say that we are, nor does the Catholic Church teach that we are.

By faith any thing we do is really good; as done in obedience to God,

YES!! (This guy is getting good!) True faith requires OBEDIENCE, not simply an "interior assent to a truth"; John 3:36 makes it abundantly clear that the opposite of "believe" (by which we gain eternal life) is not "disbelieve"... but rather, the opposite of "believe" is "DISOBEY". "Believe" is a "pregnant" word, in Scripture; it involves assent to God's truth, certainly... but it also involves LOVING Him, which involves doing what He commands (John 14:15, 14:23).

and aiming at his acceptance: the root is as though it were dead, when there is no fruit. Faith is the root, good works are the fruits;

If he left it there, he'd be right; any faith which does not bear fruit (no matter how humble, depending on one's abilities), it will not be saved; it will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Luke 3:9, etc.).

and we must see to it that we have both. This is the grace of God wherein we stand, and we should stand to it. There is no middle state. Every one must either live God's friend, or God's enemy.

(*sigh*) How is the man not in the Catholic Church? He'd have to leave behind so little (and what little he'd have to leave behind isn't important, anyway)...

Again, understandable and clear. Not tortured and misleading.

... and also not supporting your point.

Of course, it does! Every faithful, well-informed Catholic knows and believes that incontrovertible fact. But faith ALONE does not save... or else St. James (along with the Holy Spirit) is simply lying in James 2, which I--for one--refuse to believe. [quote from Ephesians 2:2-10]

This in no way contradicts James -- James does not say Faith AND works save.

Not exactly. He says that we are justified by works. He does NOT say that we are "justified by faith alone, so long as that faith happens to be accompanied by incidental fruit". He says that we are NOT justified by "faith alone". Twist it however you like, but the text says what it says.

he says works are the FRUIT of faith -- and that works without faith shows that there is no faith.

Where, exactly, does James, Chapter 2 mention "fruit" at ALL? It's not in my Bible. In fact, St. James only uses the word 5 times in the entire letter; three of them don't apply to men at all, one refers to mankind in general and not to works (James 1:18), and the last refers to the "fruits" contained in the "wisdom from above". So... if he "says" it (as opposed to someone thinking that he "means" it), then it must be there, right?

No faith? No salvation. It's simple. God's word does not contradict itself.

Who says that it does? I fully agree with what you said, here... because you left off the one word that was the entire problem: the word "ALONE".

It's Rome's heretical and false teaching that contradicts God's word that has led so many people down the wide path of destruction.

No... it's heresies such as "sola fide", "sola Scriptura", and other nonsense spawned by Luther (and co.) which has led to the shattering of the Church of Christ, the confusion and deception of countless millions, and the danger of damnation for millions.

Now... Mediator. Let's see: According to Dictionary.com, a Mediator does the following: "1. to settle (disputes, strikes, etc.) as an intermediary between parties; reconcile. 2. to bring about (an agreement, accord, truce, peace, etc.) as an intermediary between parties by compromise, reconciliation, removal of misunderstanding, etc. 3. to effect (a result) or convey (a message, gift, etc.) by or as if by an intermediary."

All right. Now... wouldn't one human, praying for another human, fit that definition? If someone prays for God's mercy on my soul (and please do!), they are acting as mediator, according to the definition you chose, here... yes?

Easy definition? Christ. As stated by God.

But that wasn't in your quoted definition from the august Dioctionary.com...! :)

What does God say about Mary being a mediatrix?

"Mediatrix" is the feminine version of "mediator"... so she would certainly qualify. No Christian is disqualified simply by virtue of the fact of being female!

I asked you how you reconcile one vs. many?

Christ is the one "absolute" Mediator, on whom all other mediators and mediation are completely dependent. All other mediators (with a small "m", if you like) are empowered only by Him, and their mediation has power only because Christ Himself empowers it.

Sounds suspiciously like faith AND works false-doctrinal creep.

Now, be reasonable, here! You've stated a personal opinion (i.e. "faith and works is a false doctrine!"), without proof, and then your statement suggests that I'm somehow running afoul of it. A proposition needs to be proven, first, before anyone can justly be convicted of "transgressing" it.

Ergh. I left a few pieces of “shrapnel” from my previous post in that reply; sorry about that!

Well, your long missive has been invalidated in three points:

First, you continue to claim that if God DOESN'T say in scripture that x, y, or z is not, then it's completely okay to say that x, y, or z is. This is not logical. When we look to God's word, we look for his instruction, rule, guidance, and truth. When there is an absence, you cannot just say, "well, if God didn't say it, then... holy tradition, popes in pointy hats, blah, blah, blah. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way. But, sadly, that is the way Rome's Cult DOES work. And when one argues with that point of view, one cannot be reasoned with, or shown truth because anyone who subscribes to this point CANNOT be reasoned with. There is no reason to appeal to!

Secondly, this quote: No. God established the Roman Catholic Church... and logic trumps error.

God did not establish the Roman Catholic Church. There's is nothing in scripture that supports this. Oh, I know you'll point to tortured and twisted verses about keys and Peter being the rock and all the other tired pablum that Rome has fed you. But, it does not make it so. Reasoned reading of God's Word shows that Christ did establish his church -- those who, through the grace and faith provided them by God Almighty, believe and trust in Christ as their savior and Lord. That is the one true ("catholic' with a little c, not "The Cathoilc" as in cult) church.

And finally, this one nails the coffin shut on our discussion....

But they were sinners. Born that way. Conceived that way. None righteous...not one MEANS what it says. Sorry. But it does. Rome's explanation once again falls short of truth.

All right. Now: please explain what sins are committed by, for example, unborn children. Then, please explain how unborn children (and others of like mental ability) who die could possibly attain Heaven, since they have manifested no "saving faith".

Did you not read the text above your question? Did you not see where I stated that we are all BORN sinners? Conceived in sin? Original Sin. Unborn children too, sadly, because of Adam's sin in the Garden. We ALL bear that burden. So did Mary, by the way. WE ARE ALL BORN DESERVING DEATH. God saves whom he saves. If he chooses to save a child, then, that child is saved regardless of whether or not he or she dies in the womb or shortly after he or she is born. That is God's choice. If God chooses to save anyone, then that person is saved. Once justified, we're provided the grace and faith to believe. Try reading Romans. And Ephesians. Really.

So. Since there can be no reasoning here, let's just agree to disagree. My hope and prayer is that The Lord will open eyes and hearts. I'm so thankful He did mine.

Hoss

Sorry for the delay... swamped, over here.

Hoss, with all due respect: your post has gone from “discussing” to “ranting” in one ambling jump (and the ratio of “harsh, baseless assertions” to “reasoned discourse” has risen from 30/70 to about 90/10)! When an opponent starts digressing to diatribes about “you’ll never understand, because you’ll never see the light, take the blinders off, give up your enslavement, blah, blah, blah...”, even I start thinking that the conversation is over... because the opponent has run out of constructive things to say.

If you’d like to chat again about substantial things, ping me... but I don’t care to be an absorbing sponge for mere ad hominems and dismissive rhetoric. Believe me, I have far too much to do on my end to invest time in nonsense like that.