If the first five or six times you repeated this argument wasn't convincing enough, being condescending won't make it more so.
Faith is an inward disposition; "justified by faith" clearly means before God as only God sees the heart. But in the Protestant twist, one has to take a single sentence ("a man is justified by works and not by faith alone") and split it down the middle -- having "justified by works" mean "seen by other persons" and "justified . . by faith" as meaning "seen by God." That's just silly. A obvious forced reading.
How can it be "forced" when that is what the Scriptures repeatedly say? What is your interpretation of these passages:
You're offering up classic Protestant eisegesis, born of desperation to maintain "faith alone" in the face of Scripture that clearly refutes it.
Yet Scripture clearly does NOT refute it. What you offer up is classic - though I don't think original - Roman Catholic eisegesis born of desperation to maintain salvation by works (with a little bit of faith mixed in for show) and to ensure the power hold Rome has over its people. As long as threats of "mortal sin" for disobeying whatever Rome declares is de fide are hanging over their heads, Roman Catholics stay because of fear of losing their salvation. Catholicism offers a bait and switch program of "come to us for the "true" faith and be saved" but "you'd better stay and do everything we tell you to or you will go to hell". I choose Jesus. I'll trust in HIS promises and not rest upon a little stone when I have the rock on which my faith is built.
By "forced" I was referring explicitly to your (and other Protestant) explanations of James 2. Here you're trying to shift away from that by quickly switching to Paul. Nope. Doesn't work.
And two things about your take on James are clearly "forced." 1) saying that the example of Abraham is not about justification before God but rather how Abraham was seen before other men is forced (ridiculous, actually) given that there were no other men present when Abraham went up the mountain to offer Isaac!! 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).
The more natural reading is that "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.
What is your interpretation of these passages:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Romans 4:2,3)
In Romans, Paul is contending with the issue of Jewish superiority, they who "boast in the law." (Rom. 2:17). They felt on account of being given the law, they held a special advantage in respect of God versus the Gentiles. Paul takes great pains to dismantle this notion. Paul points to Abraham -- the "father of the Jews" -- to argue in effect, 'if the law is the be-all of justification before God, how do you explain Abraham? He was not circumcised (the 'work of the law' par excellence) when God credited him with righteousness (Gen. 15:6) nor did Abraham live and "work" under the Mosaic law. Yet, Abraham found justification with God through faith before being circumcised and apart from the Mosaic Law. Thus, thus stands as example for both Jew and Gentile.
Paul isn't excluding Abraham's works in total; he's pointing out that Abraham didn't (and for the most part couldn't) do the "works of the law" that Jews had come to view with such exclusiveness.
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:4,5)
Paul has already noted (v. 3:24) that justification is by grace as a gift; one who views reward in a quid pro quo sense (as a worker is owed a wage) is getting it wrong. "To the one who does not work" ISN'T talking about one with an indolent faith (that is a "dead faith" (James 2:26). Rather, one who does not work is talking about a person who isn't obedient to the Law. "The ungodly" doesn't mean a reprobate, but someone profane from the perspective of the Law, i.e., a GENTILE. The irony Paul is employing here is that from the perspective of contemporary Jews with their obsessive focus on the law, Abraham was at the time of Gen. 15:6 uncircumcised and (gasp!) a Gentile. So if God can justify "gentile" Abraham, He can equally do so for present-day Gentiles, and thus the Jews need to get over their pre-occupation with the Law and boastfulness.
Is Paul excluding Abraham's "works" in the general sense of obedience to God's command? No. That is why James can say Abraham was "justified by his work" of offering Isaac and create no contradiction with Paul.
Your last paragraph, consisting of much rant and no analysis, is ignored.