Catholic Q&A Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Please, since you brought up let everyone know what you had in mind to say. >>>[quote]No. I decline. I wasn’t being coy or humorous at all. Brother Chris wrote:<<< I would love to know why I left a Calvinist seminary (that I paid for), where I was on tract to become an assistant pastor at a well established church, and to leave behind all the people I knew and loved, even to be fired and my engagement to be broken off…so I could become Catholic. Yes, please inform me, I’ll enjoy this. :)[quote]No again. Maybe I’ll pm you about it later. This is not a contest between you and I to me Chris.
[/quote]

To say things in a public forum and then decline to comment/expand when having been asked to do so by the person you made the comment about only reinforces the appearance of smug arrogance a lot of posters here have alluded to, don’t you think?
The whole ‘I ( me and those who agree with my religious slant and views) have seen the light and we have it all waxed and all others (Catholics in particular) are massively deluded’ schtick is the clear thrust of many of your posts. If you want to bring it up in private with BC, do so.

Surely?

302

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…points out what appears to be glaring inconsistencies between teaching and practice…
[/quote]

Tirib, I do see what you are talking about, and I believe that you have a genuine anger (something along the lines of righteous anger) about how some members preach one thing and do another. Sometimes it is best to not force the issue, as it falls of deaf ears. I found myself getting to that point in these threads and just had to walk away. I have made clear the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses and I realize my energies are better spent elsewhere.

For others reading this, this is not a personal attack on anyone. It is friendly advice from one person to another.
[/quote]

Hey HL! Good to see you, hope all is well…Still lookin’ swole![/quote]

Hey Pat! Thank a lot! I am training hard (start two-a-day training soon for both an oly meet and a strong man comp) and trying to put on 6-8 lbs of mass this summer.

How is your injury doing? I was thinking about that lately. Any improvements?

303

[quote]pat wrote:
Further, there in context and for the audience, when Paul refers to works, particularly in Romans, he is speaking of ‘works of the law’ meaning mosaic law, not that we are not to do good works as a part in parcel. [/quote]
We can do James 2 later, but for now let’s work on Romans.

When Paul speaks of works in Romans, he is certainly including the works of the law, as for example here:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28 KJV)

And he must make this clear, as his direct subject is the “Jew” see vs 1.

However, when he gives a practical example of what he is saying, he moves to a man living before the law, that is Abraham in Ch 4. How was Abraham’s righteousness reckoned? "When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. (Rom 4:10) He later recieved the sign of circumsicion, which was a “token of the covenant” (Gen 17:11). Paul calls it a “sign” and a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: (Rom 4:11)

So, when Paul makes a statement like “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom 4:5) it is clear all types of works are covered, not just those required by the law of the Jew. Although, if you considered what all is contained and implied in that law, even that subset covers quite a lot.

304

[quote]Sloth wrote:
[Desperate. You, the supposed bible Christian, gets corrected on the bible (Jesus naming Peter, endowment of holy spirit, hierarchical church), and having been embarrassed, resort to this uninspired trash. Go join Tiribulus on my whack-a-doo list.[/quote]

Sloth-

Pat at least is willing to get in and mix it up a little, but YOU have acted the coward. After the discussion is over, you come out of the little corner you’ve been hiding in and pronounce winner and loser. Qualify yourself first by participating, and that means more than just one line questions and jokes.

Do you know something about Paul and his intent concerning his teaching on faith and works? Then address what I’ve just posted above with a relevant post. That means detail thats directly related.

305

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< To say things in a public forum and then decline to comment/expand when having been asked to do so by the person you made the comment about only reinforces the appearance of smug arrogance a lot of posters here have alluded to, don’t you think? <<<>>> If you want to bring it up in private with BC, do so.

Surely?[/quote]There was a point in doing it that way, but I see yours as well. Fair enough.

306

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
James 2
[/quote]

You can’t talk about Paul’s teachings on works and faith without bringing into account James’ teaching on works and faith. That’s like saying we are going to ignore Jesus’ human nature to talk about Jesus’ divine nature, ignoring one nature isn’t going to mess up your understanding of Jesus. You’re disembodying the teachings of the Apostles given to them by Jesus himself.

You’re writing lacks distinction between the different kinds of “works” and “laws.” Everyone (Paul heavily) speaks on different laws in the Scripture. I can make a distinction between three laws within the Scriptures: Divine, Mosaic Ritual, and Pharisaic Rituals.

The Divine Law is in place forever. The Mosaic law (given by God, but not Divine) was mostly applied immediately after reconciliation after the Golden Calf. The Pharisaic Law was by the Pharisees, surprisingly Jesus told the early followers to listen to the Pharisees who gave heavy burdens since they sat in the seat of Moses (authority).

However, you’re also not making a distinction between the situations in which Paul and James are speaking towards. The situation is similar, justifications, but for different people. Paul is talking to those that are not Christians yet and James is talking to those who are Christians. :slight_smile:

Faith is a grace that leads us to God, this has nothing to do with our works…correct. Faith leads to justification because it leads to baptism (6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11). Catholic theology holds that faith does not act alone in the process of justification but reaches out with hope of divine mercy and love for the Lord. Faith shows itself in believers through obedience (1:5), love (Gal 5:6), and good works (Eph 2:10).

Romans 3:28 “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Looking superficially at this, we have found our first contradiction in the Bible. To be real, this is the reason why Luther tossed James. That and the Church is infamously slow on communication especially in the 16th century. Hard to reconcile this without explanation, understandable.

Looking close we discover that Paul and James are not in disagreement at all. In fact, they share a common doctrine on faith and works, though they draw attention to different aspects of it. This is not surprising, since they address different pastoral situations in the early Church.

Paul is talking about the faith of the convert that leads to baptism. He’s making an otherwise broad statement on how man is brought from sin to salvation. Faith leads to baptism, which Paul teaches is the sacrament of our justification in Christ (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:25-27; Tit 3:5-7).

James is talking, not about the faith of the convert, but about the faith of the professing Christian. He is making a general statement about those who already “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 2:1). The point, then, is that Paul and James discuss the role of justifying faith in two different contexts, namely, before and after the believer is incorporated into Christ.

Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah. one observes its moral commandments, such as those of the Decalogue, or its ritual and ceremonial obligations, such as circumcision, dietary laws, or Sabbath observance, none of these works–apart from the grace of Christ–can bring about the justification of the sinner. There is no reason to think that James would disagree with this. After all, when James affirms justification by works, he is talking, not about works of the Mosaic Law performed apart from grace, but about works of mercy performed by those who are already established in grace (Jas 1:27; 2:15-16).

I can go on about justification, but that is for another time. I need to go write another section of my thesis. Peace.

Regards,

BC

307

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
James 2
[/quote]

You can’t talk about Paul’s teachings on works and faith without bringing into account James’ teaching on works and faith. That’s like saying we are going to ignore Jesus’ human nature to talk about Jesus’ divine nature, ignoring one nature isn’t going to mess up your understanding of Jesus. You’re disembodying the teachings of the Apostles given to them by Jesus himself.

You’re writing lacks distinction between the different kinds of “works” and “laws.” Everyone (Paul heavily) speaks on different laws in the Scripture. I can make a distinction between three laws within the Scriptures: Divine, Mosaic Ritual, and Pharisaic Rituals.

The Divine Law is in place forever. The Mosaic law (given by God, but not Divine) was mostly applied immediately after reconciliation after the Golden Calf. The Pharisaic Law was by the Pharisees, surprisingly Jesus told the early followers to listen to the Pharisees who gave heavy burdens since they sat in the seat of Moses (authority).

However, you’re also not making a distinction between the situations in which Paul and James are speaking towards. The situation is similar, justifications, but for different people. Paul is talking to those that are not Christians yet and James is talking to those who are Christians. :slight_smile:

Faith is a grace that leads us to God, this has nothing to do with our works…correct. Faith leads to justification because it leads to baptism (6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11). Catholic theology holds that faith does not act alone in the process of justification but reaches out with hope of divine mercy and love for the Lord. Faith shows itself in believers through obedience (1:5), love (Gal 5:6), and good works (Eph 2:10).

Romans 3:28 “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Looking superficially at this, we have found our first contradiction in the Bible. To be real, this is the reason why Luther tossed James. That and the Church is infamously slow on communication especially in the 16th century. Hard to reconcile this without explanation, understandable.

Looking close we discover that Paul and James are not in disagreement at all. In fact, they share a common doctrine on faith and works, though they draw attention to different aspects of it. This is not surprising, since they address different pastoral situations in the early Church.

Paul is talking about the faith of the convert that leads to baptism. He’s making an otherwise broad statement on how man is brought from sin to salvation. Faith leads to baptism, which Paul teaches is the sacrament of our justification in Christ (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:25-27; Tit 3:5-7).

James is talking, not about the faith of the convert, but about the faith of the professing Christian. He is making a general statement about those who already “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 2:1). The point, then, is that Paul and James discuss the role of justifying faith in two different contexts, namely, before and after the believer is incorporated into Christ.

Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah. one observes its moral commandments, such as those of the Decalogue, or its ritual and ceremonial obligations, such as circumcision, dietary laws, or Sabbath observance, none of these works–apart from the grace of Christ–can bring about the justification of the sinner. There is no reason to think that James would disagree with this. After all, when James affirms justification by works, he is talking, not about works of the Mosaic Law performed apart from grace, but about works of mercy performed by those who are already established in grace (Jas 1:27; 2:15-16).

I can go on about justification, but that is for another time. I need to go write another section of my thesis. Peace.

Regards,

BC[/quote]
You have written a long post, which has touched on too much at once. But in your last paragraph, you state this-

“Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah.”

It seems as if you have completely ignored my reference to Rom Ch 4, in your rush to tell me what you think. I’m not willing to have such a discussion.

308

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have written a long post, which has touched on too much at once. But in your last paragraph, you state this-

“Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah.”

It seems as if you have completely ignored my reference to Rom Ch 4, in your rush to tell me what you think. I’m not willing to have such a discussion.[/quote]

Lol. Rush? It took me six years to formulate my answer to this issue. For Heaven’s sake.

309

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have written a long post, which has touched on too much at once. But in your last paragraph, you state this-

“Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah.”

It seems as if you have completely ignored my reference to Rom Ch 4, in your rush to tell me what you think. I’m not willing to have such a discussion.[/quote]

Lol. Rush? It took me six years to formulate my answer to this issue. For Heaven’s sake.[/quote]
Then I guess you ignored Romans 4 during those 6 years. I did not say James was irrelevant. But you should at least address the content of my post.

310

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have written a long post, which has touched on too much at once. But in your last paragraph, you state this-

“Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah.”

It seems as if you have completely ignored my reference to Rom Ch 4, in your rush to tell me what you think. I’m not willing to have such a discussion.[/quote]

Lol. Rush? It took me six years to formulate my answer to this issue. For Heaven’s sake.[/quote]
Then I guess you ignored Romans 4 during those 6 years. I did not say James was irrelevant. But you should at least address the content of my post.[/quote]

Why, wasn’t it directed at Pat? I believe that is courteous to let him answer the questions directed at him. I was just pointing out that you weren’t making distinctions with the works and with the laws. My formulation, in which I make my understanding of rom 4 clear, on justification I said I would with hold, because you asked Pat.

P.S. Romans is one of the books I memorized. I have an intimate knowledge of the book.

311

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have written a long post, which has touched on too much at once. But in your last paragraph, you state this-

“Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah.”

It seems as if you have completely ignored my reference to Rom Ch 4, in your rush to tell me what you think. I’m not willing to have such a discussion.[/quote]

Lol. Rush? It took me six years to formulate my answer to this issue. For Heaven’s sake.[/quote]
Then I guess you ignored Romans 4 during those 6 years. I did not say James was irrelevant. But you should at least address the content of my post.[/quote]

Why, wasn’t it directed at Pat? I believe that is courteous to let him answer the questions directed at him. I was just pointing out that you weren’t making distinctions with the works and with the laws. My formulation, in which I make my understanding of rom 4 clear, on justification I said I would with hold, because you asked Pat.

P.S. Romans is one of the books I memorized. I have an intimate knowledge of the book.[/quote]
Well yes it was directed at Pat. Your “just pointing out” had a lot of content, and no mention really of what I did say. You only addressed what you feel I didn’t say. Courtesy would require you to address what I did say as well.

Anyway, we can do more on this topic after we give Pat a chance.

312

So here is a related question for both Chris and Pat-

Certainly when formulating a systematic position on works and their relation to justification, you would have to take into account both Paul and James, since the both discuss the same topic. I have observed Catholics glad to take from “here a little, and there a little” on this topic, which is as it should be, BUT when they come to the topic of who is the rock, not so much. When I reminded Pat “that Rock was Christ”, somehow two passages talking about the same thing becomes a square peg in a round hole.

Is this not inconsistent?

313

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

And KingKai, let’s let Pat munch on this one himself. I’m sure you know what the quote is getting at. So if Pat doesn’t have something decent on it say after 24 hrs, than you address a post to him, and explain the importance of what the statement is getting at, and how it relates to our discussion of the early church period.[/quote]

Yes, it merely means that when dealing with history the closest you can get is 2nd hand information. And that would be like a hand written letter say by John Adams that you have physical access to. Asside from those type of sources, you are largely relying on hearsay with a smattering of physical evidence to back it up.
So in one sense the it’s true that all history is fiction in that, you can’t really know what happened because you weren’t their.
In another it’s just a catchy phrase devoid of any real meaning. Because, history can be very accurate too, verifiablity is the problem and the further you go back the harder it is to verify because you information sets get smaller. Archeology can add to the information set, but only so much.

So when it comes to history, the most accurate history is that which has the most consensus and archaeological evidence to back it up. That which has less consensus is considered less accurate especially if it’s pitted against that which has greater consensus and /or archaeological evidence.

Now more accurately it should be said that all history is suspect and that is 100% true. The question is what are you willing to do about it, meaning how much digging are you willing to do? And in the end your still mainly just trusting people to be telling you the truth. Since most of them are dead and their times have past, it’s almost impossible to know. But if their accounts line up with physical evidence and other accounts, it’s largly considered to be true.

Now, it’s ok if you want to apply this kind of scrutiny to history, but you have to apply it evenly across the board to everything including the historical accounts in the bible, if you intend on being academically fair and accurate.

What you cannot do is take the notion that all history is suspect, and apply it to say that what I account as history is then false and your replacement for it is true. Your replacement has to have a consensus and physical credibility to debunk the other account. You cannot just say it and it be true.
[/quote]

I think now we are getting somewhere.

It’s not just okay, it’s what you should do. As far as looking at the bible, if you mean to refer to historical background, exactly so. Since the scripture is an inspired record, it will be handled differently at other levels of study though.

I have not attempted to do what you have just described. I have said your conclusion is suspect. I conclude that the early church is not nearly the same thing as today’s Roman Catholic Church. Lets pull up one item of fact which you’ve cited- The word ‘katholikos’ was used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D. in reference to the church. He is using a word to describe a scriptural truth. You take it as giving the church you belong to today it’s name. Sorry, the Roman Church of today which you belong to has stolen that concept, and claimed it for itself.

Here is another one of yours:

[quote]pat wrote: Apostolic tradition was broken in the 1500’s and no sooner. This is an indisputable fact.[/quote] But it’s not a fact. It assumes a whole bunch of stuff. It’s a conclusion.

So you see, we are both looking at the same facts, but we have vastly different understandings of what that fact means. I have no need to deny any facts you present, and have not done so.

314

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
James 2
[/quote]

You can’t talk about Paul’s teachings on works and faith without bringing into account James’ teaching on works and faith. That’s like saying we are going to ignore Jesus’ human nature to talk about Jesus’ divine nature, ignoring one nature isn’t going to mess up your understanding of Jesus. You’re disembodying the teachings of the Apostles given to them by Jesus himself.

You’re writing lacks distinction between the different kinds of “works” and “laws.” Everyone (Paul heavily) speaks on different laws in the Scripture. I can make a distinction between three laws within the Scriptures: Divine, Mosaic Ritual, and Pharisaic Rituals.

The Divine Law is in place forever. The Mosaic law (given by God, but not Divine) was mostly applied immediately after reconciliation after the Golden Calf. The Pharisaic Law was by the Pharisees, surprisingly Jesus told the early followers to listen to the Pharisees who gave heavy burdens since they sat in the seat of Moses (authority).

However, you’re also not making a distinction between the situations in which Paul and James are speaking towards. The situation is similar, justifications, but for different people. Paul is talking to those that are not Christians yet and James is talking to those who are Christians. :slight_smile:

Faith is a grace that leads us to God, this has nothing to do with our works…correct. Faith leads to justification because it leads to baptism (6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11). Catholic theology holds that faith does not act alone in the process of justification but reaches out with hope of divine mercy and love for the Lord. Faith shows itself in believers through obedience (1:5), love (Gal 5:6), and good works (Eph 2:10).

Romans 3:28 “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”
James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Looking superficially at this, we have found our first contradiction in the Bible. To be real, this is the reason why Luther tossed James. That and the Church is infamously slow on communication especially in the 16th century. Hard to reconcile this without explanation, understandable.

Looking close we discover that Paul and James are not in disagreement at all. In fact, they share a common doctrine on faith and works, though they draw attention to different aspects of it. This is not surprising, since they address different pastoral situations in the early Church.

Paul is talking about the faith of the convert that leads to baptism. He’s making an otherwise broad statement on how man is brought from sin to salvation. Faith leads to baptism, which Paul teaches is the sacrament of our justification in Christ (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:25-27; Tit 3:5-7).

James is talking, not about the faith of the convert, but about the faith of the professing Christian. He is making a general statement about those who already “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 2:1). The point, then, is that Paul and James discuss the role of justifying faith in two different contexts, namely, before and after the believer is incorporated into Christ.

Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah. one observes its moral commandments, such as those of the Decalogue, or its ritual and ceremonial obligations, such as circumcision, dietary laws, or Sabbath observance, none of these works–apart from the grace of Christ–can bring about the justification of the sinner. There is no reason to think that James would disagree with this. After all, when James affirms justification by works, he is talking, not about works of the Mosaic Law performed apart from grace, but about works of mercy performed by those who are already established in grace (Jas 1:27; 2:15-16).

I can go on about justification, but that is for another time. I need to go write another section of my thesis. Peace.

Regards,

BC[/quote]

Two things. First of all, could you clarify what you mean by, “Paul is talking TO those that are not Christians yet and James is talking TO those who are Christians? (Emphasis added)” Both Romans and James are addressed to Christian audiences (Rom. 1:7-8). Do you mean that Paul is dealing with some sort of initial justification (conversion, so to speak) and James is talking about a final justification? Douglas Moo and Don Carson argue for something like that in their work on James, i.e., that James is dealing with justification in the context of final judgment. I don’t necessarily buy that, but it is one interpretive option. Can you really make such a sharp distinction between “works of the Mosaic Law performed apart from grace” and “works of mercy performed by those who are already established in grace” when it comes to justification?

Secondly, on what basis do you distinguish between “divine law” and “Mosaic law,” or “moral commandments” and “ritual and ceremonial obligations?” Jews of the first century did not make any such distinction; for them, ritual and ceremonial laws were very bit as moral as the others. That is an arbitrary distinction made by Christians later on, and it is doubtful whether such a distinction should be read back into the New Testament.

315

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
So here is a related question for both Chris and Pat-

Certainly when formulating a systematic position on works and their relation to justification, you would have to take into account both Paul and James, since the both discuss the same topic. I have observed Catholics glad to take from “here a little, and there a little” on this topic, which is as it should be, BUT when they come to the topic of who is the rock, not so much. When I reminded Pat “that Rock was Christ”, somehow two passages talking about the same thing becomes a square peg in a round hole.

Is this not inconsistent?[/quote]

It isn’t inconsistent. Just because two texts use the same word, that doesn’t mean they are using it in the same way or talking about the same thing. It is entirely possible that Paul may mean something entirely different by “justify” (dikaio) than James does. On what basis do you read 1 Cor. 10:4 (that Rock was Christ) as relating to Matthew 16:18? The word petra is being used to refer to two different things! In 1 Cor 10, Paul is providing an interpretation of the experience of the Israelites in the wilderness to justify his assumption that, just as God punished the Israelites for disobedience, so will he punish us. His point is that the situation between the ancient Israelites and “modern” Christians, i.e., those who know Jesus as Lord, is exactly the same. Both drank from the spiritual rock, which is Christ. Paul is obviously alluding to the miracle in which, through Moses’ blow, God brought water from a rock for thirsty Israel. In this case, Jesus isn’t being equated with the foundational rock of the church, but rather with the life-giving/ water-releasing rock in the wilderness. This is not the same use of petra that we see in Matthew 16. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent about the way Pat and Chris are reading Matthew 16:18, as you haven’t provided a reason to assume that 1 Cor. 10:4 and Matthew 16:18 are talking about the same thing.

316

I want to present a man that I met on a retreat/seminar a month or so back. He is quite hilarious in his writing and talks. He’s a lay Catholic, apologist, former presbyterian minister, &c. We’ve been in contact and he sent me a link to his new article, “How Not to Become a Catholic.”

I thought it was absolutely hilarious, so I decided to drop the link here.

First: How Not to Become a Catholic
Second: How Not to Become a Catholic--Part 2
Third: How Not to Become a Catholic, Part 3

P.S. He is a Westminster fellow, Tirib.

317

EDIT: All three
Read _____________ Chris,
Thanks

318

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
So here is a related question for both Chris and Pat-

Certainly when formulating a systematic position on works and their relation to justification, you would have to take into account both Paul and James, since the both discuss the same topic. I have observed Catholics glad to take from “here a little, and there a little” on this topic, which is as it should be, BUT when they come to the topic of who is the rock, not so much. When I reminded Pat “that Rock was Christ”, somehow two passages talking about the same thing becomes a square peg in a round hole.

Is this not inconsistent?[/quote]

Catholics don’t do the former, so why they would do the latter is beyond me.

319

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
Two things. First of all, could you clarify what you mean by, “Paul is talking TO those that are not Christians yet and James is talking TO those who are Christians? (Emphasis added)” Both Romans and James are addressed to Christian audiences (Rom. 1:7-8). Do you mean that Paul is dealing with some sort of initial justification (conversion, so to speak) and James is talking about a final justification? Douglas Moo and Don Carson argue for something like that in their work on James, i.e., that James is dealing with justification in the context of final judgment. I don’t necessarily buy that, but it is one interpretive option. Can you really make such a sharp distinction between “works of the Mosaic Law performed apart from grace” and “works of mercy performed by those who are already established in grace” when it comes to justification?[/quote]

This is as basic as I can get on this without thinking more on it:

Paul is talking about what it takes to be initially justified. Faith, which leads to baptism, which is initial justification. Faith is a grace from God, given freely to us. We have not earned that grace by any kind of works.
James is talking about after baptism and that the faith dies when we sin against it, this includes sin of omission or not doing works of mercy (through grace of course).

Oh what basis? The fact that the Gentiles know the law in their hearts. Further, the Mosaic laws were not given until after the Golden Calf thing. The early Church fathers distinguished between the two. The first century Jews, Pharisees, also created laws that went against divine law that was considered moral.

320

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Further, there in context and for the audience, when Paul refers to works, particularly in Romans, he is speaking of ‘works of the law’ meaning mosaic law, not that we are not to do good works as a part in parcel. [/quote]
We can do James 2 later, but for now let’s work on Romans.

When Paul speaks of works in Romans, he is certainly including the works of the law, as for example here:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28 KJV)

And he must make this clear, as his direct subject is the “Jew” see vs 1.

However, when he gives a practical example of what he is saying, he moves to a man living before the law, that is Abraham in Ch 4. How was Abraham’s righteousness reckoned? "When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. (Rom 4:10) He later recieved the sign of circumsicion, which was a “token of the covenant” (Gen 17:11). Paul calls it a “sign” and a "seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: (Rom 4:11)

So, when Paul makes a statement like “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom 4:5) it is clear all types of works are covered, not just those required by the law of the Jew. Although, if you considered what all is contained and implied in that law, even that subset covers quite a lot.

[/quote]
We can do James later…LOL! I bet…

Paul is refering to the works of the law in this circumstance. While his example of Abraham’s faith and obedience prior to this verse was referring to pre-law time frame, this Romans 4:5
“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,(Romans 4:5 ESV)”~ is in reference to mosaic law. For Abraham’s obedience is pre-law you also have to look at what Paul is not saying. He is not saying that Abraham merely needed faith and with that alone, he did not have to take action. If he was disobedient to God, then his faith alone would not have saved him. His works took on meaning because of his faith and they mattered only because of faith.
For look at Adam, Adam did not bring sin in to the world by losing faith, he brought it into the world by his work.
Also, In Romans 2:6-7 look at what Paul says here:
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;(Romans 2:6-7 ESV)”

So why would God render to each according to his works, if works were not necessary for salvation? Should not this be ‘each according to his faith’ then? But that’s not what this says.