Salvation by Faith or Works?

The good works were the result of salvation...not the cause..

And we wish you Protestants would stop misrepresenting what we say and stop talking only about the selective verses of Scripture you prefer.

There is an organic connection between faith, works and salvation. The illustration of the sheep and the goats bears out what Paul says (Rom. 2:6-7) about eternal life being rendering in accordance with works and what Jesus teaches (John 15) about abiding in His love through obedience to His commandment to love one another.In my prior post I explicated this in detail.

And I've laid out in detail why "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" is the natural, straightforward reading, while the "James is talking about how others saw Abraham" is a ridiculous spin given that there were no other men around to witness what Abraham did. Yet you cling to poor, forced interpretations.

Your retort that "Catholics don't understand" is devoid of substance. We're the ones here doing the close examination of Scripture (and all of them).

It's becoming almost comical how you will construct and defend an entire doctrine of justification by works using a snippet of a verse from James, but then turn around and spend paragraphs twisting and turning CLEAR passages to force them into your version of the gospel and then accuse me of shifting away. Abraham was justified before God through faith PERIOD. His actions only demonstrated what kind of faith he had. To whom? you ask. To everyone that has ever heard of or read the account, that's who! Certainly immediately to Isaac, to Sarah, to the servant that went with Abraham and Isaac and to himself, but also to all those who would come after him. We know about it just like we know about what Jesus went through His testing with the devil after fasting for 40 days in the desert. Who saw that?

One last time, I have no desire to continue this hashing, rehashing, hashing and rehashing the same points with you. You have already made it clear you are convinced you are correct and I, and others, are wrong. You've thrown all you have in your armory to win the argument - even resorting to insults, ridicule, mockery and condescension (sure signs of a weakening defense). I have doubts you have convinced anyone who wasn't already on one side or the other. I firmly believe that, until ones heart is in the right place seeking to know God and the power of the gospel, there will be all kinds of roadblocks put in their path up to and especially including the pride that goes with works righteousness.

Here's the deal...I believe that I am saved by the grace of God alone that He gives to me through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone to the glory of God alone. I DO live my life in charity to honor Him and bring Him glory. I open myself to Him completely and I see the Holy Spirit working in my life conforming me to the image of Christ. Now, just because I don't believe the gospel you preach, I don't see how my life would be any different than if I DID follow your way. So, what benefit do you imagine there is to believing the CpnHook version of the gospel versus the gospel we have been defending? Do you think scaring a believer in Christ into fearing he will go to hell if he doesn't do the good works your church requires be a better way? Or do you have enough faith in the working of the Holy Spirit to complete the good work He began in us while we walk by faith and live by faith? Is God able to sanctify those He has chosen? I think He is and He does and the ONLY way He gets all the glory He rightfully deserves is when we have surrendered to Him in faith and we finally grasp the truth that it was ALL to Him, by Him and for Him and not anything WE do.

Concur.

Those who believe their works save them fail to properly orient themselves to the Grace of God, but instead make Him a Debtor, and manifest their lack of faith in His Provision.

“A prince, while he is a little child, is presumably as willful and as ignorant as other little children. Sometimes he may be very obedient and teachable and affectionate, and then he is happy and approved. At other times he may be unruly, self-willed, and disobedient, and then he is unhappy, and perhaps is chastised—but he is just as much a prince on the one day as on the other. It may be hoped that, as time goes on, he will learn to bring himself into willing and affectionate subjection to every right way, and then he will be more princely, but not more really a prince. He was born a prince” (C.I.Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth).

It's becoming almost comical how you will construct and defend an entire doctrine of justification by works using a snippet of a verse from James,

Oh, it's not just James. It's also verses from Jesus, Paul, Hebrews, etc. But as to James what I am defending is a straightforward reading of James, as opposed to your forced, ridiculous spin that as to Abraham James is speaking of how "others" observed Abraham's obedience when it's clear to anyone who can read Scripture that there were no "others" around to "see" Abraham offer Isaac.

The passages in James are about how Abraham was justified in the eyes of God; that's who was there to observe; that's what "justification" entails -- our standing before God. If you don't understand that much, I can't help you.

And, of course, you don't reply when I point out how ridiculous your interpretation of those passages is; you just go on the attack and tell me I'm missing some point somewhere.

but then turn around and spend paragraphs twisting and turning CLEAR passages

The clearest passage on the relationship of faith, works, and justification is the passage from James (2:21-24) I've been highlighting. The passages from Paul do not contain the workding "faith alone." What you see as "clear" isn't in fact there! Though years of having those verses drilled into you as meaning "faith alone" is a very challenging distortion for me to overcome. You're going to see what isn't there, because that's what you've been taught.

Abraham was justified before God through faith PERIOD.

The clear text of Scripture says otherwise -- "not by faith only." Catholics see where Scripture says Abraham was justified by faith (which verses don't say "only"). And we see where Scripture says Abraham was justified by his act of obedience to God's command, and we conclude that Abraham was justified by his faith AND his work of offering Isaac.

That's the straightforward, not forced reading. Try it sometime.

His actions only demonstrated what kind of faith he had.

But Scripture doesn't say merely "his actions demonstrated his faith." They say Abraham was "justified" by his work. And the Holy Spirit through James even calls this a "fulfillment of prophecy," citing to Gen. 15:6 (the same verse Paul cites to), so we can KNOW 'justify' here is used in the same sense of "credited with righteousness before God" that Paul uses.

I say Abraham was justified by his work, which is what the text actually says. You paraphrase the text to say Abraham work just demonstrated his faith.

Now which of us is sticking closest to the text?

To whom? you ask. To everyone that has ever heard of or read the account, that's who!

But it's both "to whom and when."

"21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

Abraham is said to have been justified "when he offered." That means THEN; at THAT point in time. Only God observed "when he offered." Not Sarah (who wasn't there); not Isaac (who didn't understand what was going on); not some future persons reading about it (that's not "then" that's "later").

And you still have the problem your read on this creates for you with verse 24. As I've noted twice:

2) "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" is a single sentence with a singular use of "justified," which is then said, respectively, to be "by works" and "by faith." But under your "works is about how we're seen by others" read you have to split this verse down the middle and pretend that "justified by works" is talking about other men, and then a few words later pretend "justified by faith" is suddenly talking about God (as clearly only God, not men, sees one's inner disposition.

Here, again, I can demonstrate why the Catholic read on this verse is the more natural and straightforward: "Abraham was justified by his work" pertains to how he was seen by God (as there were no other men around) and, consequently, "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" is likewise talking about justification before God, as it's a continuation of the same thought expressed in the immediately prior 3 verses about Abraham.

You've thrown all you have in your armory to win the argument - even resorting to insults, ridicule, mockery and condescension

Describing an argument as "forced" while at the same time explicating there is an alternative reading of the passage that does less violence to the text isn't "insult, ridicule, mockery." No doubt my holding up your forced reading against the more reasonable, natural reading isn't fun for you, but such is how these discussions can go when you start by asserting Catholics have it wrong.

And as to "condescending," are you serious? The whole tenor of the Protestant posters here is one continuous refrain of their superior knowledge of Scripture. It works both ways. Deal with it.

So, what benefit do you imagine there is to believing the CpnHook version of the gospel versus the gospel we have been defending?

First off, it's not "my" version of Scriptures I'm advancing -- it's the basic outlook of the Christian world prior to the Protestant efforts to read Paul to be saying "faith alone" where he doesn't actually say it. So, yes, I think a more complete, honest read of all the pertinent Scripture is a good thing unto itself.

The second thing is trying to get some to understand correctly the Catholic view on the relationship of faith, works, and justification and correct the erroneous "work righteousness" label you all reflexively haul out. That persists, because arguing against a distortion is always easier, so some can't resist clinging to it.

If nothing else, while you will continue to accept your read, you should at least acknowledge there is a good bit of Scriptural support for the Catholic view.