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.
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.