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 Christby 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
"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:
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"? :)
"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:
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)...