No, because both St. James and St. Paul refer to Abraham but they refer to the different parts of the story of Abraham. When St. Paul says that Abraham was saved not by works he speaks of circumcision instituted by God through Abraham; and when St. James speaks of Abraham saved by works, he speaks of the sacrifice of Isaac. This is the plain reading of the parts ...
It's interesting that you would use the word "saved", for James. The two translations I use (KJV, NIV) say "justified", and I was going to form an argument that the use of that word here is not in the traditional Biblical salvific mode, i.e. (Strong's 1344) "dikaioo" means "justified" in the eyes of men, not before God.
But then I realized that the word "saved" to your Church has no meaning of any lasting significance. One is "saved" only until his next mortal sin, at which time he becomes "unsaved" once again. So, you can simply claim that Abraham was "saved" concerning his belief (accorded righteousness) and then sometime later he sinned, losing his salvation. 50 years after that, he re-earned his salvation by offering up Issac.
If this is the general idea then we obviously disagree on the premise, and it folds into another topic entirely. But as to the original point about what the independent reader would think, as between the two here, he would weigh all 7 pages of the Book of James (in my Bible, including study notes) against the collected NT works of Paul. I know that the RCC has a TON invested in those 7 pages, (and doesn't "like" much of Paul's writings), but I remain confident in what the INDEPENDENT reader would conclude. This is to take nothing away from James and his 7 pages. They are fully scripture and are true. What I'm talking about is what the independent reader would conclude after reading those 7 pages AND ALL of Paul. He absolutely might have honest questions about Paul and James, but the huge weight of the scripture supports Paul's Sola Fide teachings.
I believe that the evangelists, St. Paul, St. James, St. Peter and St. Jude clearly expressed very many clear theological truths led by the Holy Ghost, both in the scripture and through tradition. What I don't believe is that they meant the scripture to be sufficient alone outside of the Church or open to individual interpretations.
If this is true then they wrote directly against what they taught orally, to a major degree. This was part of my original point. The scriptures, by themselves, do not lead to the RCC. They lead away from it. The independent reader isn't merely left "unfulfilled" by "scripture alone" under Catholicism, he is no where near it. :) Only through the bending lens of your Church can your faith be seen in scripture (comparatively). Paul teaches Sola Fide in writing. Some of you say "no he didn't" and back it up with the writings of later men, whom you trust more, who disagree with the plain meaning of his words. Others of you say "yes he did", but he (Paul) was wrong. It comes out the same. In your Church, whatever the "BIG" truth is, can't be found in scripture alone. We disagree.
FK: "We, OTOH, believe that all of God's word was meant to be learned and loved by all believers as relevant to them specifically."
This is a strange belief. Is it common to all the Reformed? This sounds like that comical "In the Bible we learn about the Ten Suggestions".
I am sure that my intention is common to all the Reformed, but since I don't understand your response, I suppose I should be careful. :) My point was mainly to point out the difference in our faiths in how much of the Bible actually applies to us. From what I've gathered, a noteworthy portion of the Bible is really private messaging from God to your hierarchy. IOW, for the rest of us, VERY KEY parts of the Bible are only FYI. I object to this view. I believe God gave the Bible to His children across time, and NOT, at key point, to only the self-elected few. God disapproved of man-led kingdoms. Why would He section off major parts of His Holy Book to speak only to Kings?
There is nothing un-Catholic in any of St. Paul's writings, or in any other scripture. This is why we are Catholic: we don't pick and choose which scripture to believe.
Well, you wouldn't NEED to pick and choose. Once it's washed through the Church's lens, scripture comes out meaning exactly what is needed. This is classic ends justifies the means. All scripture is fully Roman Catholic because Roman Catholics say it is! :)
We also do not believe that all scripture is perspicuous, and I gave you a scriptural prooftext for this Catholic belief.
None on my side believe that ALL scripture is perspicuous; that is, in the sense that it can be understood (and believed) on one's own. The Bible clearly says that God's truths will be foolishness to those without grace to understand. Therefore, "perspicuous" must be carefully defined for our purposes here. Understanding must be distinguished from belief. However, if you mean common usage, then we would say the whole Bible is not perspicuous, but rather the basic truths ARE. In my mind, the common usage of "perspicuous" would be "readily understandable". I do not say the whole Bible is like this. :) Christ's Gospel is readily understandable and believable to the elect at the proper time.
As does also the English word 'Justify'- 'To show to be just, right'.
Amen.
Well, Abraham was asked to put his faith to a test. We see the same with Job. The common thread in all of them is: God knows that we have faith, but God wants us to show it by works.
In Exodus, God knew which houses were Jewish, but He wanted the Jews to mark them anyway to show their faith. Certainly God didn't need the markers (as He knows what's in our hearts)! But he wanted them.
So, +James uses the word "justified" (δικαιόω) in the traditional Jewish manner: that one is made acceptable (justified) to God by faith manifested by works .
Thus, in 2:24, James says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." If this seems irreconcilable with +Paul from the Protestant point of view, it is! [which is why Luther has so much difficulty with +James]
But +James also uses the word "saved" (σώζω) as an apocalyptic concept, which is related to but not identical with justification. Thus he says "lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" [1:21]. Notice that he says the word is able. There is no guarantee. And in 2:14 +James says "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"
James uses the term "saved" as the end-of-times Judgment and not a moment, which is the way the original Jewish Christians understood it (being an apocalyptic sect of Judaism) and how the Church interprted it from the beginning.
It's actually both, FK, taken in context, of course.
+Paul preaches sola fide because it is the very minimum required. The Protestant error is that it claims faith to be all that is required.
In the historical context, +Paul expected the end of times to come at any moment, and faith was a must in order for the coverts to be baptized. Under such urgency, works of faith simply had a secondary meaning to him.
The word was not legible or comprehensible or available to all but to a few for most of the Christian history. Your statement has no historical basis. Also, the very word of God does not tell us to read but to listen; God did not give us a book to read. God preached to His prophets and Apostles.
Simply because he himself uses it earlier in the passage, along with "justified". Indeed, for the Catholic church, and for James, justification/salvation is a lifelong process, although "salvation" can also be referring to the sacrifice of Christ that made it all possible.
I know that the RCC has a TON invested in those 7 pages, (and doesn't "like" much of Paul's writings)
Sez who? We love St. Paul and all he wrote. You read St. Paul incorrectly: you ginore the context, so you come out with short prooftexts: "not of works". But the context always explains what kind of works he is talking about. This is why all his epistles end with exhortations for works of love and charity. St. Paul never taught Sola Fide. It is not that we disagree with him or that we use other sources, -- one cannot get Sola Fide from St. Paul ALONE.
believe God gave the Bible to His children across time, and NOT, at key point, to only the self-elected few. God disapproved of man-led kingdoms. Why would He section off major parts of His Holy Book to speak only to Kings?
For one thing, St. Paul did not disapprove of kings at all; read Romans 13. On your larger point, the Scripture is indeed given to all faithful, as long as they read it faithfully. In order to understand it, note that Christ sent specific people as himself and told them to teach others. That is this Church. The Scripture is given all as a part of that comission, to teach.
Christ's Gospel is readily understandable and believable to the elect at the proper time.
So much for your populism expressed earlier. Specific warnings I had in mind is the warning at the end of 2 Peter about the difficulty in understanding the Pauline epistles, and another, also in Peter, against private interpretations. The fact that you see Sola fide in the scripture when the opposite is asserted in it, is proof enough that the essentials of faith are not clear to you.