Faith Vs Works

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) The very first entry proves that works are seen as instrumental, not merely evidential, in justification:

1987

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:34

(dUSt) And?

(Me) I had asked for the following:

Could you please provide a quote showing that Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that works play a purely evidential part in justification, as you imply here?

[Nancella]

The Lord Jesus Christ, during His time walking among us, showed Himself to be one of great compassion and love, who spent most of His life, that which was documented, in the service of others. Those who followed him, naturally, sought to emulate him as best they could, preaching and healing as He had, because in this way they could truly honor Him, and be His legacy. Now i don't have my bible handy, and i can't provide and scriptural references offhand, for which i apologize. however i know this, Jesus told His people to bear up their crosses and follow Him, and i cannot believe He meant for or desired any half-measures in this. even if it is not by works that we are saved, even if faith alone will bear us into heaven, we are still bound to serve, as Jesus did, if we mean to honor His sacrifice completely.

[Dave]

Did you actually write this, or just cut 'n' paste it? If the latter, please don't do it again.

There are no rules against cut and paste jobs on the phorum. You have no authority to come on here and tell us how to run our board.

(Dave) Heb. 11:6 - faith is the minimum requirement without which we cannot please God. But this is just the beginning of justification.

(Me) This is an assertion not shown by the text. I would also wonder why Paul's proof-text of Abraham's justification by faith (see esp. Romans 4) is far after he first had faith -- in other words, he was still justified by faith longer after justification's beginning.

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Wrong. What it says is that we must first have faith. Then we must seek Him. How do we do this? By doing good works! I'll deal with Abraham later . . .

(Dave) Psalm 51:17 - we also need a broken and contrite heart, not just an intellectual assent of faith. Faith in God is only the beginning.

(Me) The fact that God loves repentance does not mean that man is justified by that repentance.

Excuse me? That's just absurd. Without repentance, there can be no justification. Without justification, there's no salvation.

(Dave) Eph. 2:8 - this verse refers to this initial justification by faith. But justification is an ongoing process which, as we later see, includes our good works. Moreover, works outside of sanctifying grace do not justify us. Works in sanctifying grace do justify us.

(Me) This is just a statement of the Roman Catholic doctrine, and is not taught by the text.

Ephes. 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

It says "as we LATER see." But to say that the text says that works have absolutely no part in our justification is to ignore the mountain of scriptural evidence that shows otherwise. You've got to consider scripture in light of other scripture, not alone! I keep saying that for a reason!

(Dave) Gal. 5:6 - the faith that justifies us is faith working through love, not faith alone.

(Me) Yes, this is a good description of saving faith. How on Earth does it follow from the fact that faith is not mere intellectual assent, as the demons have, that we are justified by works at all?

It's quite simple, actually. We have to live that faith by doing good works.

(Dave) James 1:22-25 - it's the "doers" who are justified, not the hearers. Justification is based on works. We need "fides formata."

(Me) Nowhere does this text mention justification by works. It is an exhortation unto good works.

James 1:22-25

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.

24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.

25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

Why would we be exhorted to do good works if they don't play a role in our salvation? It would be pointless to do so if our works automatically sprang from our faith.

(Dave) James 2:17 - James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Works is a cause, not just an effect, of our justification.

James 2:19 - even the demons believe that Jesus is Lord. But they tremble. Faith is not enough. It is only the beginning.

James 2:20 - do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Good works in God's grace are required for justification.

James 2:22 - faith is active with works and is completed by works. It does not stand alone. Faith needs works to be completed and perfected.

(Me) Funnel this discussion into my exegesis of James 2 on the Sola Fide thread.

OK, I'll deal with it there.

(Dave) James 4:17 - in fact, the failure to do works is a sin! So works are absolutely necessary for our justification.

(Me) Non-sequitur; it does not follow from "the failure to do works is a sin" that "we are justified by works."

If we persist in sinning, we won't go to heaven. If we consistently fail to do good works, we won't go there. If we don't go to heaven, it means we weren't justified.

(Dave) James 2:25 - another example of "works" is when Rahab assisted the spies in their escape. Good works increase our justification and perfect our faith.

(Me) Where does this text say that soteriological justification is increased by good works?

James 2:25

And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

What you just quoted gives the evidence!

(Dave) James 2:18 - to avoid the truth of the Catholic position that we are justified by both faith and works, Protestants argue the justification that James is referring to in James 2 is "before men" and not "before God." Scripture disproves their claim.

(Me) I will assume that this is supposed to be followed by the next quote, because otherwise it doesn't entail anything useful. Although, this is a straw man (as the rest of these passages appear to be). We claim that James' justification is epistemological (related to knowing or having evidence of being made right with God by having true faith), while Paul's justification is ontological/metaphysical (related to the state of being or fact of having been made right with God by having true faith).

Nope, they're not straw men; just more rhetoric on your part. The passage I provided is clear.

(Dave) James 2:14 - James asks, "Can faith save him?" Salvation comes from God. This proves the justification James is referring to is before God, not men.

(Me) James actually says, "Can that faith save him" -- that is, the kind of faith that is not accompanied by works. There is a definite article preceding pistis (faith) -- the feminine form of ho. That is why you'll scarcely find a non-Catholic translation with does not include the pronoun -- because the existence of the pronoun, if translated as demonstrative, would destroy the Catholic exegesis.

Now that statement about translations is just plain goofy! In my Catholic Bible, it uses the pronoun too. The presence of the article changes nothing, and you haven't proved that it does.

(Dave) James 2:19 - also, James reminds us that even the demons believe and tremble. This refers to our relationship with God. Thus, our justification that requires works and not faith alone relates to our status before God, not men.

(Me) James asked his objector to "show me your faith" -- clearly this is a request for evidence to a person.

So what? Your point?

(Dave) James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham's justification refers to his position before God, not men. This proves justification is before God, not men.

(Me) Unless the justification in view here is simply the proving true of his supposed salvation!

More conjecture.

(Dave) Rom. 2:7,10 - to those who by patience and good works will be granted glory and honor and peace from the Lord.

(Me) Yes, judgment is according to deeds. And?

Which means that they play a role in our justification!

(Dave) Rom. 6:16 - obedience leads to righteousness. Obedience is a good "work," an act of the will, which leads to righteousness before God.

(Me) Sanctification, yes. However chapter 6 is not talking about justification -- being made right with God. The question is over justification, not sanctification.

There's very little difference between the two.

(Dave) Eph. 6:8 - whatever good anyone does will receive the same again from the Lord. God rewards good works done in grace.

(Me) Which requires justification by works because..?

If we were justified by faith alone, God would ignore our good works!

(Dave) Titus 3:8 - good deeds are excellent and profitable to men. Good deeds further justify us before God.

(Me) Titus 3:8

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

The fact that they are excellent and profitable does not mean that they justify us.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your silly charges. More than enough biblical proof for my position was given. The fact is, you stubbornly insist on looking at the Bible with biased eyes. You can't do that. You have to do it through the eyes of the Church Jesus Christ founded -- the CATHOLIC CHURCH! It has always taught the same thing for 2000 years and HAS NEVER ERRED.

Besides, "seeking" Christ is a work, "believing" is a work, having faith is a work...

we work at our faith... we nourish it with Scripture!

Edited September 5, 2003 by Dave

[ironmonk]

Did you actually write this, or just cut 'n' paste it? If the latter, please don't do it again.

I don't quite think you fully grasp what it is to be Catholic...

You're going to encounter many people posting the same replies to your statements...

We are One Faith...

There is One Faith that has been handed down for 2000 years, we all drink from that same cup of Faith.

The Catholic faith is not going to change... It will grow, but never change.

The Pillar and Foundation of Truth... guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit... lead by Christ Himself until the end of time... A city on a mountain which cannot be hidden... The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it....

Tu Es Petras - The Pope... Holds the keys....

Just as in Jewish time...

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which mandate leadership over the Church and dynastic succession.

Isaiah 22:19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.

20 5 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

22 6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

24 7 On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

25 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.

- Is 22:19 / 25 - The Jewish leaders are going to loose their authority.

- Is 22:21-24 - Authority is given to the Pope.

Scripture is deep... much deeper than most realize.

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

You've asked many times "what's your point?" - "And?" - etc... Draw the conclusion, stop a minute, ponder the verses, draw a conclusion... Obviously if your interpretations were so sound, you would see the point.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

(ironmonk) You're going to encounter many people posting the same replies to your statements...

(Me) Yes, just like I've already received (and rebutted) your references to Matthew and Isaiah. Just like my statements keep getting ignored, so I have to keep correcting people on my position. I'm really getting tired of this.

(ironmonk) The Catholic faith is not going to change... It will grow, but never change.

(Me) What of the shift away from Augustinian views on nature and grace between the Pelagian controversies and Trent? What of the shift from Tradition I to Tradition II, and now Tradition III? What of the ever-changing definition of "Tradition" -- agreement of the Fathers, partim-partim, material sufficiency, or development of doctrine?

(ironmonk) You've asked many times "what's your point?" - "And?" - etc... Draw the conclusion, stop a minute, ponder the verses, draw a conclusion... Obviously if your interpretations were so sound, you would see the point.

(Me) This would follow only if your arguments were cogent. I may simply be demonstrating the fact that either your argument was not explained sufficiently (thus not cogent) or did not follow (thus not cogent).

(Previous) Did you actually write this, or just cut 'n' paste it? If the latter, please don't do it again.

(Dave) There are no rules against cut and paste jobs on the phorum. You have no authority to come on here and tell us how to run our board.

(Me) Of course not. But, a debate is only intended to persuade the undecided reader. And, of course, the undecided reader is going to see that, if you keep posting articles by Roman Catholic apologists, and I keep tearing them down, that, no only are you unable to argue your own case, but even formal apologists cannot. For, if a college student who has been studying theology for a year and a half, without having read a single anti-Catholic book, is able to refute these articles at a moments notice, how weak is the Roman Catholic position?

(Previous) This is an assertion not shown by the text. I would also wonder why Paul's proof-text of Abraham's justification by faith (see esp. Romans 4) is far after he first had faith -- in other words, he was still justified by faith longer after justification's beginning.

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

(Dave) Wrong. What it says is that we must first have faith. Then we must seek Him. How do we do this? By doing good works! I'll deal with Abraham later . . .

(Me) Yes, then we must seek Him. But the text does not tell us that faith is simply the beginning of justification, and works go on to justify us.

(Previous) The fact that God loves repentance does not mean that man is justified by that repentance.

(Dave) Excuse me? That's just absurd. Without repentance, there can be no justification. Without justification, there's no salvation.

(Me) Without manure, there are no cows. However, that does not entail that manure creates milk. Likewise, the fact that there is no justification apart from repentance does not imply that repentance justifies us.

(Previous) This is just a statement of the Roman Catholic doctrine, and is not taught by the text.

Ephes. 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

(Dave) It says "as we LATER see." But to say that the text says that works have absolutely no part in our justification is to ignore the mountain of scriptural evidence that shows otherwise. You've got to consider scripture in light of other scripture, not alone! I keep saying that for a reason!

(Me) I don't consider one passage a mountain. If so, I could claim to argue from half a dozen mountains, found in Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians.

(Previous) Yes, this is a good description of saving faith. How on Earth does it follow from the fact that faith is not mere intellectual assent, as the demons have, that we are justified by works at all?

(Dave) It's quite simple, actually. We have to live that faith by doing good works.

(Me) In order to rightly claim to have faith? Yes. But, the evidentiary justificatory status of works in no way entails soteriological causation.

(Previous) Nowhere does this text mention justification by works. It is an exhortation unto good works.

James 1:22-25

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.

24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.

25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

(Dave) Why would we be exhorted to do good works if they don't play a role in our salvation? It would be pointless to do so if our works automatically sprang from our faith.

(Me) We're talking about justification here, not salvation generally.

And, inDouche, notice that James says those without works are "deceiving yourselves." By claiming to have faith but not having works, we are deceiving ourselves; for, if we do not have works, we do not really have faith. Our belief that we have faith is, then, self-deception. In other words, James presents works as evidence of faith. This is exactly the position I've maintained.

(Previous) Non-sequitur; it does not follow from "the failure to do works is a sin" that "we are justified by works."

(Dave) If we persist in sinning, we won't go to heaven. If we consistently fail to do good works, we won't go there. If we don't go to heaven, it means we weren't justified.

(Me) If we don't have manure, it means we're not raising cows. If we're not raising cows, we don't get dairy products. This does not mean that we get dairy products on the basis of having manure.

Likewise: if we don't have works, it means we don't have faith. If we don't have faith, we aren't justified. This does not mean that we are justified on the basis of works.

(Previous) Where does this text say that soteriological justification is increased by good works?

James 2:25

And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

(Dave) What you just quoted gives the evidence!

(Me) That is, unless works justify (prove right) faith (or a man). In such a case, soteriological justification is not increased or caused, but evidenced or proved. After all, this argument comes as a response to the imperative "show me your faith." The justification in view is evidencing -- showing me your faith.

(Previous) I will assume that this is supposed to be followed by the next quote, because otherwise it doesn't entail anything useful. Although, this is a straw man (as the rest of these passages appear to be). We claim that James' justification is epistemological (related to knowing or having evidence of being made right with God by having true faith), while Paul's justification is ontological/metaphysical (related to the state of being or fact of having been made right with God by having true faith).

(Dave) Nope, they're not straw men; just more rhetoric on your part. The passage I provided is clear.

(Me) Do you know what a straw man is? For our purposes, it is the misrepresentation of a position, whether purposely or not. I have provided a description of popular Protestant exegesis of this passage, which is not simply useless rhetoric, for it is the statement of a position, not the argument for that position. Few of your arguments appear to understand our position, whether on this passage or on justification, faith, and works.

(Previous) James actually says, "Can that faith save him" -- that is, the kind of faith that is not accompanied by works. There is a definite article preceding pistis (faith) -- the feminine form of ho. That is why you'll scarcely find a non-Catholic translation with does not include the pronoun -- because the existence of the pronoun, if translated as demonstrative, would destroy the Catholic exegesis.

(Dave) Now that statement about translations is just plain goofy! In my Catholic Bible, it uses the pronoun too. The presence of the article changes nothing, and you haven't proved that it does.

(Me) Your argument hinged upon the fact that it said "Can faith save him?" However, if it says, "Can that faith save him?" it seems that James is talking about real faith versus fake faith. And, Protestant exegesis is based on such a position -- namely, that James is pitting fake, "demonic" faith ("God is one") against real faith, that is justified (proven right) by works.

(Previous) James asked his objector to "show me your faith" -- clearly this is a request for evidence to a person.

(Dave) So what? Your point?

(Me) The Roman Catholic view takes the justification in this passage to be soteriological, the Protestant epistemological (evidential). "Show me" demonstrates that James is concerned with the evidence of faith, not that the soteriological justification by faith be increased by soteriological justification by works.

(Dave) James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham's justification refers to his position before God, not men. This proves justification is before God, not men.

(Previous) Unless the justification in view here is simply the proving true of his supposed salvation!

(Dave) More conjecture.

(Me) The point I made is simply a point of logic, an unaccounted hermeneutical possibility that you had not given reason to reject. And, inDouche, "show me" is not conjecture. My discussion up through this point has all pointed to this conclusion, and you have not dealt with it.

(Previous) Yes, judgment is according to deeds. And?

(Dave) Which means that they play a role in our justification!

(Me) I have no idea how that follows. I could quote half a dozen Protestant systematics affirming that consummational judgment is according to deeds, but justification is by faith alone. Justification brings the eschatological judgment forward in time to the present, and a "righteous" verdict legally pronounced. This reconciliation is the basis for the consummational verdict, coming through the doorway of deeds. I see no actual contradiction between judgment according to deeds and justification by faith alone. I would also maintain that Paul did not (Romans 2:12 and Romans 4:1-5).

(Previous) Sanctification, yes. However chapter 6 is not talking about justification -- being made right with God. The question is over justification, not sanctification.

(Dave) There's very little difference between the two.

(Me) How not?? Justification is being made right with God, the legal declaration of righteousness, the once-for-all judicial reconciliation. Sanctification is the temporal increase of holiness, the temporal redemption of the soul unto actual righteousness.

(Previous) Which requires justification by works because..?

(Dave) If we were justified by faith alone, God would ignore our good works!

(Me) I don't see why. Sure, you are right to say that the "already" reconciliation is not based on works. But, this does not exclude the reward of covenantal faithfulness in toto! It simply means that we in no way earn our right standing with God.

(Previous) Titus 3:8

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

The fact that they are excellent and profitable does not mean that they justify us.

(Dave) I'm not going to respond to the rest of your silly charges. More than enough biblical proof for my position was given. The fact is, you stubbornly insist on looking at the Bible with biased eyes. You can't do that. You have to do it through the eyes of the Church Jesus Christ founded -- the CATHOLIC CHURCH! It has always taught the same thing for 2000 years and HAS NEVER ERRED.

(Me) I'm a little shocked here. You present a grand total of one passages that can be construed to directly associate actual justification with the instrument of works. I respond to such a claim, but you do not understand my response. Moreover, you do not even understand my position. Then, on the basis of you presenting only one crucially relevant passage, misunderstanding my position, and not seeing my argument, you expect me to be convinced?

I'm sorry, but I would suggest that you stop looking at things with biased eyes. If you do not accurately understand my position, how is it not biased to claim it wrong? If you do not accurately understand my arguments, how is it not biased to claim them wrong? If you do not accurately understand the nature of the debate at hand, how is it not biased to claim it wrong?

(Dave) Besides, "seeking" Christ is a work, "believing" is a work, having faith is a work...

(Me) Faith is labeled as distinct from works in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and James. Making such a claim, then, is to argue with Scripture. Yet, I suppose the Magisterium could just "reinterpret" (change) the meaning of these passages, if such a position needed to be maintained.

(Dave) we work at our faith... we nourish it with Scripture!

(Me) Yes, of course.

Edited September 25, 2003 by mustbenothing

[Dave]

(Previous) Did you actually write this, or just cut 'n' paste it? If the latter, please don't do it again.

(Dave) There are no rules against cut and paste jobs on the phorum. You have no authority to come on here and tell us how to run our board.

(Me) Of course not.  But, a debate is only intended to persuade the undecided reader.  And, of course, the undecided reader is going to see that, if you keep posting articles by Roman Catholic apologists, and I keep tearing them down, that, no only are you unable to argue your own case, but even formal apologists cannot.  For, if a college student who has been studying theology for a year and a half, without having read a single anti-Catholic book, is able to refute these articles at a moments notice, how weak is the Roman Catholic position?

You've torn nothing down, buddy. We've shown you time and time again how your arguments don't stand up, but you refuse to admit defeat. Well I think it's high time you conceded the argument.

(Previous) This is an assertion not shown by the text. I would also wonder why Paul's proof-text of Abraham's justification by faith (see esp. Romans 4) is far after he first had faith -- in other words, he was still justified by faith longer after justification's beginning.

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

(Dave) Wrong. What it says is that we must first have faith. Then we must seek Him. How do we do this? By doing good works! I'll deal with Abraham later . . .

(Me) Yes, then we must seek Him. But the text does not tell us that faith is simply the beginning of justification, and works go on to justify us.

(Previous) The fact that God loves repentance does not mean that man is justified by that repentance.

(Dave) Excuse me? That's just absurd. Without repentance, there can be no justification. Without justification, there's no salvation.

(Me) Without manure, there are no cows. However, that does not entail that manure creates milk. Likewise, the fact that there is no justification apart from repentance does not imply that repentance justifies us.

(Previous) This is just a statement of the Roman Catholic doctrine, and is not taught by the text.

Ephes. 2:8

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

(Dave) It says "as we LATER see." But to say that the text says that works have absolutely no part in our justification is to ignore the mountain of scriptural evidence that shows otherwise. You've got to consider scripture in light of other scripture, not alone! I keep saying that for a reason!

(Me) I don't consider one passage a mountain. If so, I could claim to argue from half a dozen mountains, found in Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians.

(Previous) Yes, this is a good description of saving faith. How on Earth does it follow from the fact that faith is not mere intellectual assent, as the demons have, that we are justified by works at all?

(Dave) It's quite simple, actually. We have to live that faith by doing good works.

(Me) In order to rightly claim to have faith? Yes. But, the evidentiary justificatory status of works in no way entails soteriological causation.

(Previous) Nowhere does this text mention justification by works. It is an exhortation unto good works.

James 1:22-25

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.

24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.

25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

(Dave) Why would we be exhorted to do good works if they don't play a role in our salvation? It would be pointless to do so if our works automatically sprang from our faith.

(Me) We're talking about justification here, not salvation generally.

And, inDouche, notice that James says those without works are "deceiving yourselves." By claiming to have faith but not having works, we are deceiving ourselves; for, if we do not have works, we do not really have faith. Our belief that we have faith is, then, self-deception. In other words, James presents works as evidence of faith. This is exactly the position I've maintained.

(Previous) Non-sequitur; it does not follow from "the failure to do works is a sin" that "we are justified by works."

(Dave) If we persist in sinning, we won't go to heaven. If we consistently fail to do good works, we won't go there. If we don't go to heaven, it means we weren't justified.

(Me) If we don't have manure, it means we're not raising cows. If we're not raising cows, we don't get dairy products. This does not mean that we get dairy products on the basis of having manure.

Likewise: if we don't have works, it means we don't have faith. If we don't have faith, we aren't justified. This does not mean that we are justified on the basis of works.

(Previous) Where does this text say that soteriological justification is increased by good works?

James 2:25

And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

(Dave) What you just quoted gives the evidence!

(Me) That is, unless works justify (prove right) faith (or a man). In such a case, soteriological justification is not increased or caused, but evidenced or proved. After all, this argument comes as a response to the imperative "show me your faith." The justification in view is evidencing -- showing me your faith.

(Previous) I will assume that this is supposed to be followed by the next quote, because otherwise it doesn't entail anything useful. Although, this is a straw man (as the rest of these passages appear to be). We claim that James' justification is epistemological (related to knowing or having evidence of being made right with God by having true faith), while Paul's justification is ontological/metaphysical (related to the state of being or fact of having been made right with God by having true faith).

(Dave) Nope, they're not straw men; just more rhetoric on your part. The passage I provided is clear.

(Me) Do you know what a straw man is? For our purposes, it is the misrepresentation of a position, whether purposely or not. I have provided a description of popular Protestant exegesis of this passage, which is not simply useless rhetoric, for it is the statement of a position, not the argument for that position. Few of your arguments appear to understand our position, whether on this passage or on justification, faith, and works.

(Previous) James actually says, "Can that faith save him" -- that is, the kind of faith that is not accompanied by works. There is a definite article preceding pistis (faith) -- the feminine form of ho. That is why you'll scarcely find a non-Catholic translation with does not include the pronoun -- because the existence of the pronoun, if translated as demonstrative, would destroy the Catholic exegesis.

(Dave) Now that statement about translations is just plain goofy! In my Catholic Bible, it uses the pronoun too. The presence of the article changes nothing, and you haven't proved that it does.

(Me) Your argument hinged upon the fact that it said "Can faith save him?" However, if it says, "Can that faith save him?" it seems that James is talking about real faith versus fake faith. And, Protestant exegesis is based on such a position -- namely, that James is pitting fake, "demonic" faith ("God is one") against real faith, that is justified (proven right) by works.

(Previous) James asked his objector to "show me your faith" -- clearly this is a request for evidence to a person.

(Dave) So what? Your point?

(Me) The Roman Catholic view takes the justification in this passage to be soteriological, the Protestant epistemological (evidential). "Show me" demonstrates that James is concerned with the evidence of faith, not that the soteriological justification by faith be increased by soteriological justification by works.

(Dave) James 2:21 - James also appeals to the example of Abraham. Abraham's justification refers to his position before God, not men. This proves justification is before God, not men.

(Previous) Unless the justification in view here is simply the proving true of his supposed salvation!

(Dave) More conjecture.

(Me) The point I made is simply a point of logic, an unaccounted hermeneutical possibility that you had not given reason to reject. And, inDouche, "show me" is not conjecture. My discussion up through this point has all pointed to this conclusion, and you have not dealt with it.

(Previous) Yes, judgment is according to deeds. And?

(Dave) Which means that they play a role in our justification!

(Me) I have no idea how that follows. I could quote half a dozen Protestant systematics affirming that consummational judgment is according to deeds, but justification is by faith alone. Justification brings the eschatological judgment forward in time to the present, and a "righteous" verdict legally pronounced. This reconciliation is the basis for the consummational verdict, coming through the doorway of deeds. I see no actual contradiction between judgment according to deeds and justification by faith alone. I would also maintain that Paul did not (Romans 2:12 and Romans 4:1-5).

(Previous) Sanctification, yes. However chapter 6 is not talking about justification -- being made right with God. The question is over justification, not sanctification.

(Dave) There's very little difference between the two.

(Me) How not?? Justification is being made right with God, the legal declaration of righteousness, the once-for-all judicial reconciliation. Sanctification is the temporal increase of holiness, the temporal redemption of the soul unto actual righteousness.

(Previous) Which requires justification by works because..?

(Dave) If we were justified by faith alone, God would ignore our good works!

(Me) I don't see why. Sure, you are right to say that the "already" reconciliation is not based on works. But, this does not exclude the reward of covenantal faithfulness in toto! It simply means that we in no way earn our right standing with God.

(Previous) Titus 3:8

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

The fact that they are excellent and profitable does not mean that they justify us.

(Dave) I'm not going to respond to the rest of your silly charges. More than enough biblical proof for my position was given. The fact is, you stubbornly insist on looking at the Bible with biased eyes. You can't do that. You have to do it through the eyes of the Church Jesus Christ founded -- the CATHOLIC CHURCH! It has always taught the same thing for 2000 years and HAS NEVER ERRED.

(Me) I'm a little shocked here. You present a grand total of one passages that can be construed to directly associate actual justification with the instrument of works. I respond to such a claim, but you do not understand my response. Moreover, you do not even understand my position. Then, on the basis of you presenting only one crucially relevant passage, misunderstanding my position, and not seeing my argument, you expect me to be convinced?

I'm sorry, but I would suggest that you stop looking at things with biased eyes. If you do not accurately understand my position, how is it not biased to claim it wrong? If you do not accurately understand my arguments, how is it not biased to claim them wrong? If you do not accurately understand the nature of the debate at hand, how is it not biased to claim it wrong?

(Dave) Besides, "seeking" Christ is a work, "believing" is a work, having faith is a work...

(Me) Faith is labeled as distinct from works in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and James. Making such a claim, then, is to argue with Scripture. Yet, I suppose the Magisterium could just "reinterpret" (change) the meaning of these passages, if such a position needed to be maintained.

I don't need to explain anything further. I've given you mountains of evidence, and you ignore it or try and weakly explain it away. Say what you want, but it's YOU who are looking at things with biased eyes. You refuse to stop reading your interpretation into these Bible passages. Isn't the Church, which Jesus endowed with infallibility, more sure of being right than a fallible individual such as yourself? All your counter-arguments have done is show that you're grasping at straws to salvage your position. You asked earlier how I could expect you to be convinced if I supposedly don't give you enough evidence. The fact is, buddy, you don't want to be convinced! You came here to try and convert others to your way of thinking! You'll never succeed, so it's time for you to give up.

[cmotherofpirl]

Guys its very basic really.

Faith without works is dead.We are justified when we are baptised and we "work our our salvation in fear and trembling."

Notice the word "work"?