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