Sola fide IS a perfectly Biblical and Apostolic doctrine taught all throughout Scripture and repeatedly defended by the early leaders of Christianity. It's strange how you can presume a single passage in one book can cancel out or negate all the others from the rest of Scripture which clearly teaches over and over that we are NOT saved by the righteous deeds we do - whether works of the Mosaic law or our works of charity. May I remind you, Abraham was justified by faith alone 400 YEARS before there even was a Mosaic law.
You can continue to argue the false and accursed gospel the Roman Catholic church developed over time - and which was NOT the gospel once delivered unto the saints - and you can trust in your own merit, goodness, righteousness, works, deeds or whatever is the next hoop your religion deems in necessary to jump through for your salvation, but it will NOT make it true and will NOT convince those who have come to genuine and sincere faith in Jesus Christ and follow HIM.
JESUS is our righteousness. HE is the only sacrifice for our sins. HE is who will save us by faith in Him and we shall never perish, be cast out, be lost or plucked from His hands. I will trust in what HE says, in HIS authority instead of what foolish and sinful men devise out of their blackened hearts deceived by their own lusts for power, wealth and prestige. We are saved by grace through faith and not by our works. How many times does God need to repeat that?
That is the problem, and often one of but degree of separation, being at times possibly close, then veering away from that touching upon "close".
All-in-all there is no plan of salvation there to be found other than the Roman Catholic Church ecclesiastical body being preached as the ways and means of the Gospel, becoming then the Gospel itself.
If that was the "good news" in hugh and series way - I do not want to hear the bad news.
What difference would there be in the new-es then, anyway?
It surely proved to be a hell on earth for many in the past, even though it was likely as not real cushy and comfortable (for those on top of the heap) for those long centuries (6 or so, at the least?) when simony and feudalism went together hand-in-glove...
The world has been there and done that. No more will that be allowed to occur (although the zealots among the muslims have their own competing version(s) which they are trying to put into effect).
That Roman Catholic way of centuries past "ways" has proven itself, beyond all argument to the contrary to have far too much negative effect wrapped up within it, to ever again be contemplated ---- until Christ Himself comes back to oversee the operation(s) more directly.
Until then, the RCC having in past centuries cast it's lot wholeheartedly into the effort to have things always "both ways", of this world and realm and of God's own too, simultaneously, far too often much as Esau long before, sold their birthright for bowls of porridge (earthly wealth and 'glory') and now...rather futilely seek repentance for having done that, with many tears...
Come back! We are your leader!
Lol.
Jacob, that usurper, has moved on, grown strong and no longer needs fear his hairy (and now near toothless) old brother.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.But then, as the RC caucus loves to point out, we have James with this:
Romans 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.These are both using the same Greek term for justification, dikaioō, but they cannot mean both that justification is based on works and justification is not based on works. That would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. It is axiomatic that Holy Spirit inspired text will never produce a real contradiction. Therefore, while I understand fully the force of James in showing that works accompany justifying faith, it passes understanding that the converse force of Paul's declarations, cited above, can be ignored by any party to this debate, as if it hadn't even been written, or was written to no purpose.
Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.In this passage, men are justifying God, not the other way around. Could we then use this as a proof text that it's OK for men to judge God? God forbid! It means no such thing! God is not in this case having a judicial sentence passed over Him by mere mortals. Perish the thought! What IS happening is that sinful men at the Baptism of John are recognizing that God was right all along, which is the very reason they are repenting and being baptized. In other words, here dikaioo is being used here to describe a recognition, by men, of an existing condition in God.