Replies

So here see more examples of the fruit of Romanism, in which, rather than dealing with the underlying issue, one acts like a cultic charlatan Christian, and ignoring, the polemical manner of context and uses it as defining what other explicit statements state to the contrary of his reading, and then blithely dismiss objectively analysis of by using vindictive scorn, and then responds to reproof of that by charging evasion!

Such is the recourse of souls who assert they are right because their cult said they are right, and "desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm," (1 Timothy 1:7) and who even allows one can be saved by works alone!

For faced with apparent contradictions, the underlying issue at hand becomes how they are reconciled, and thus in what sense does James contradict Genesis and Romans in stating "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," since taken at face value this would contradict Gn. 15:6 which has Abraham justified by faith before offering up Issac, and

"to him that worketh not , but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5)

and

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Romans 3:28)

and

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)

and

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

amounts to saying a man is justified by faith alone in the appropriative sense, but not by a kind of faith that remains alone, as in one which will not produce works, which inert faith is what Reformers preached against , contrary to the RC strawman of sola fide.

For indeed, the noninfallible interpretation that has Paul's exclusion of works as only referring to works of the law or pagan works (as the basis for obtaining justification) is invalid, since not only do other texts broadly exclude works-merit as the basis for justification, though believers are rewarded for them, but as expressed, the reason it is "the works of the Law" which is often used is because, "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21) In other word, is there was a system of justification by merit of works-righteousness then it the Law would be it, and its exclusion covers all systems of justification by works as making one good enough to be with God.

But as explained, in the context of what kind of faith is salvific ("though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" Ja. 2:14) - can a faith that is merely professed, versus expressed (given opportunity as in the example that follows), save one - the answers is no, such a faith cannot save him. And thus the conclusion "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:24) meaning works must follow faith if it is to be considered justificatory, but which not that of works obtaining justification, but by a faith that produces works, again, given opportunity, or else Rome's baptism by desire must even be disallowed.

Paul himself distinguished btwn hearers and doers, while teaching it is the faith that is behind works that appropriates justification. For while it is faith the appropriates justification, yet to believe is to obey, and thus "the doers of the law (in its true sense) shall be justified, not hearers only," (Rm. 2:13) as this "doing" testifies to them being true believers, but not earning salvation, and likewise it is said, the Lord Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:9)

But of course the unlearned can grasp at James 2:24 and compel it as teaching that it is the merit of works and his level of holiness that actually justifies one as the basis by which he gains eternal life and entrance into Heaven. And which is where the heresy begins, and begins with a soul being made accepted in the Beloved on the basis of his own personal holiness and ends up with one suffering in purgatory until he becomes god enough to enter Heaven, all under the Roman rubric of grace.

Which, outside of the forgiveness part, is essentially teaching justification by the law thru grace, that as under the Law one was accepted by God on the basis of his works, so one is under the Catholic system, except grace become a means to do the works and attain the level of perfection needed to enter glory.

And which essentially can mean rendering texts which actually deal with whether it is real faith or the merit of works to read like,

"Abraham believed and offered up Issac, God, and it made him righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that works works of charity in believing on him that justifieth the Godly, his faith and works earn him righteousness.

By works of righteousness which we have done in faith we are saved according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost by which we do works which merit us salvation.

For by grace are ye saved through works of faith and personal holiness; it is the earned gift of God: Not obtained by faith but by works done in grace, so that any Catholic should boast of his church which dispensed grace which they cooperated with.

Other texts are also invoked which show God rewarding believers for their works as it being fitting to reward them, but which is not that of works earning the gift of eternal life by his works making him worthy to enter Heaven, but that of God in His covenantal grace rewarding believers for their faith (Heb. 10:34) as manifested by its effects, wrought by God thru them, though apart from being made "accepted in the Beloved" by pure grace - faith being counted for righteousness - then they really deserve damnation.

Yet in forcing James 2:24 etc. to exclude justification being obtained by faith alone before it expresses faith, then to be consistent the RC must contradict an accommodationist aspect of the soteriology of his own church. For as shown, even Rome allows for justification by faith without works via contritio caritate perfecta, and thus herself contradicts the simpletons proof text, "we are not justified by faith alone," and as Swan provides , Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone, ” with Robert Bellarmine listing eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3): Origen, Hilary, Basil , Ambrosiaster (through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God), etc.

Yet as said, faith and works go together like light and heat normally do. And thus the exhortations in such places as Hebrews to faith also exist with exhortations to works, as the former beget the latter. And and while they are already sanctified in Christ, and have boldness to enter the holy of holies to commune with God by the sinless shed blood of Christ, yet they are called to live that out, and seek to fully posses practically that holiness which is imputed to them, which is a necessary primary testimony to true faith. (10:14,19; Heb. 12:14)