I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[mrS4ntA]

MariaG:

Hi Ozzie,

While I can tell from reading your posts that you seem to be more of the scholarly bent than I am, and frankly I tend to stay away from the Justification, Sanctification, arguments I was struck by a comment, which I am sure you will clear up but you said:

:bible1: James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

This seems to directly contradict what you said. However, as I tend to stay away from these conversations since it always appears to me that people are just talking past each other, I could definitely be wrong. Scripture says we are justified by works and not faith only.

God Bless,
Maria

Someone pointed out that that passage is **the only **place in the Sacred Scripture where the word “faith” and “alone” (only) appears together. Except, of course, if you read Luther’s German translation – with his notorious addition.

 

[Ozzie]

Catholic4aReasn:

2heartsaz1:

Q. 4.

And Christ himself did say," unless you are born…of water and the holy Spirit you have no life in you" Here the action of the holy Spirit and the “water” are treated separately - how do we make sense of this?

A. Jesus answers this Himself: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Jn. 3:6). They’re two different births. In other words, Jesus defines being born of “water” not as water baptism (baptism is not even mentioned in this passage), but born physically. One must be born physically and then born again spiritually. This passage says NOTHING about water baptism. Read it again, especially vss. 5-6.

Are you certain that you’re understanding this passage correcty? If so, how? Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy Hummm, I guess I don’t understand why you asked the latter part of your question: “If so, how?” Since I supplied the reasoning behind my interpretation with my post. In verse 5 Jesus says one must be born of “water” and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. In verse six He explains, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” “Water” corresponding to natural birth (born of flesh), “Spirit” to spiritual regeneration, "born of Spirit). In verse seven Jesus tells Nicodemus not to marvel that he “must be born again” (or, from above). If Jesus meant water to mean baptism, which would then cause spiritual regeneration, He would have said not to marvel that he must be born of water in order to be born again, i.e., spiritually regenerated. But what was required of Nicodemus was that he be born of the Spirit only.

 

[Ozzie]

2heartsaz1:

Question for Ozzie: What did JESUS go out and DO after saying these words? Kindly check verse 22 of same chapter: John 3:22 What does this action say about Baptism?

Actually, it says nothing. There is far more said about salvation just previously to this verse: Jn. 3:14-22, esp. *“that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life.” *But that Jesus and His disciples baptized, says nothing. Jesus, like John the Baptist, was preaching that the Kingdom was *“at hand” *(see Matt. 3:2; 4:17) and their baptism was a baptism of repentance, not salvation, and especially not regeneration.

What does the water and blood signify AND truly mean when the centurian pierced Jesus’ heart?

It means He was truly dead.

Could we use the word ‘trust’ alongside hope in the many instances quoted previously? I trust in God’s promises but I will NEVER trust in my own weakness and depravity.

The hope we have in Christ is based on our eternal inheritance in Christ. There is joy attached to this word, and that joy is based on the promise of that inheritance. In fact, God has given all true believers the Holy Spirit as a “pledge,” or “down payment” of our inheritance. We are sealed in Him “until the day of redemption” (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30).

Wishing you Christ’s peace which surpasses all understanding

Thank you, and you too. Peace comes with knowing that you have been justified by faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1-2).

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Pax, they believe God is one, they don’t, nor cannot, believe that Christ saves them. Christ and His sacrificial death for our complete redemption and reconciliation to God is the content of salvation faith, this side of the cross. There is no divine plan of salvation for demons (fallen angels). Only Adam’s race. The Son became a Man, not an angel. James was writing to the Jew who took pride in being a monotheist, the unity of God being a fundamental article of their faith. It’s just one of the arguments he brings up to demonstrate that the faith that saves produces works. But James never concludes in his brief argument that faith plus works saves or justifies . But instead true faith is demonstrable by works (2:18). His argument correlates with Paul’s teaching that those saved by GRACE are “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works” (Eph. 2:8-10). No works is a good indication that there is no faith. Could be a lot of religion, but no true faith.

Ozzie,

You said, “James was writing to the Jew who took pride in being a monotheist, the unity of God being a fundamental article of their faith.” This is incorrect. James is talking to all of us. The fact that “God is one” is a primary article of Christianity and not just Judaism. This same basic point is made in Mark 12:29, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, and Ephesians 4:6. The teaching of “God is one” is an important component of the teaching on the Trinity.

The most indicative verse concerning whom James is talking to is 2:1 where James says, “MY BRETHREN, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” So please recognize what’s truly being said and to whom it is being said.

While I agree that there is no possible salvation for demons, I nevertheless, recognize that James is telling his fellow Christians that if they have faith but no works, then they are no better off than the demons that believe that God is one. You apparently don’t make the same connection.

Your statements concerning what James concludes or does not conclude are only your opinions. You say that “James never concludes in his brief argument that faith plus works saves or justifies.” Catholics on the other hand, say exactly what James says in 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Your statements deny the exact words of James.

I completely agree that James argument correlates with Paul’s teaching that those that are saved by grace are “created in Christ Jesus for good works.” I just don’t think you have an appreciation or understanding of Paul. It might be helpful if you had included all of Ephesians 2:10 in your quote. It says, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Notice that the good works “are created by God beforehand” that we should walk in them. Ponder that statement; it’s implications are manifold and it truly bridges the writing of Paul and James.

You claim that “no works” is a good indication that there is no faith. I’m sure that in light of the exact words of James that he would consider this to be a “generous concession” on your part.

 

[Pax]

You still maintain that faith is not a gift. This is what I was talking about when I asked what church you were discipled in. I have never had a Protestant, other than you, tell me that faith is not a gift. Please check this out further. Once you learn this basic truth you will be one step closer to the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church.

You are still insisting that “the obedience of faith” means that faith itself is the obedience. This is way off the mark. Let me give you some additional scripture to help clarify this.

Jesus tells us that “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life. He who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (John 3:35-36). Jesus later states that, “As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love”(John 15:9-10). These verses illustrate that we must both believe and obey, and that the obedience is to obey the commandments. Jesus also says, “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”(Matthew 7:4)."
I could go on and on with scripture in this regard and provide a lengthy and exhaustive list of supporting verses, but these should be enough. The book of Romans contains numerous passages concerning obedience and disobedience yet you fail to make the proper connection to the “obedience of faith.”

And I will suggest once more that you read Ephesians chapter five in its entirety and you will see that those Christians that commit serious sin are by “association” sons of disobedience. I would also recommend that you consider 1 Timothy 5:8 where Paul says, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” Take note: Unbelievers are the sons of disobedience and Paul is warning us that if we fail to take care of our relatives that we are worse than the sons of disobedience."

 

[Ozzie]

ncgolf:

One of the questions I have about the “once saved, always saved” is why a judgement at death is needed. It seems it would be just be a formality since in life people have professed Christ as their savior. I guess that was question in the opening thread. You say you are saved by professing Christ as your savior, and we, as Catholics say you must believe Christ is your savior and live your life as Christ lived His, any less puts a soul in peril. That is why we will not know for certainty, until death, whether we will gain Heaven.

The latter part of your above quote contains a blatant contradiction. (1) You say you must believe Christ IS your Savior yet with the same breath you claim that you must live your life the same as Christ lived His, or your soul is in peril. I assume by “peril” you mean eternal damnation. The second part of your statement cancels out the first. (2) You cannot truly believe JESUS is your Savior if your salvation is in any way dependent on you as well. (3) You cannot truly believe Jesus IS your Savior if you do not believe that He has indeed actually saved you. (4) The fact that you use the phrase “gain Heaven” proves you teach a self-works salvation, a works gospel, which is of course anti-Biblical since the Bible clearly teaches salvation is a GIFT of God (Eph. 2:8-9). (5) The fact that you claim you cannot know if you’ve “gained” Heaven until death indicates that you, in fact, do not believe Jesus ever did save you in this life time. You call Him “Savior,” but you deny that He actually saved you. This is the great contradiction of religion. All religion ultimately preaches salvation by works, actually nullifying the cross, whereas the Gospel as presented in God’s Word is always cross based and the free gift of God.
Continued…

 

[Ozzie]

The Bible speaks of no immediate “judgment at death.” It does give a general statement that “it is appointed for man to die once and after this comes judgment.” But through the study of God’s entire Word we know that judgment does not occur immediately after one dies. In fact, for the true believer he/she at death goes straight into the presence of Christ, there to await the future resurrection of his/her body:

“Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- for we walk by faith, not by sight-- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him” (2 Cor. 5:6-9; cf. Phil. 1:23).

So much for “purgatory.”

Paul then goes on to say: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). You must take careful note that this future judgment is for believers only, and that for being recompensed for “deeds” (works) done in the body, i.e., during this life time. It is for “payment” for work done, not condemnation and damnation. This judgment has nothing to do with sins or salvation. Christ already took our judgment for our sins, in our stead, on the cross. This works “appraisal” is further explained in 1 Cor. 3:

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:11-15).

Again, this judgment is for the dispensing or holding of “rewards,” not salvation. RC’ism claims this passage for its non-Biblical doctrine of “purgatory,” but the testing “fire” here does not “cleanse” anything or anyone. It “reveals” the quality of a man’s work, and if it stands the test a reward is merited. Contrasted to salvation which, according to God’s Word, is NEVER merited, but is always a free gift based on Christ’s sacrificial work on the cross on our behalf.

NC, you will never be saved by living a life like Christ’s, but you are saved BY GRACE because of the life of Christ. For He “was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

 

[RBushlow]

**Ozzie:
I’m not real concerned what early church writers had to say. I am very concerned, however, with what God has communicated to us in His written Word. You should be too.
I certainly am. Since they were taught by the Apostles, who were taught directly by Jesus, I think they may lead to a clearer understanding of what Jesus taught.

Your brother in Christ

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

The latter part of your above quote contains a blatant contradiction. (1) You say you must believe Christ IS your Savior yet with the same breath you claim that you must live your life the same as Christ lived His, or your soul is in peril. I assume by “peril” you mean eternal damnation. The second part of your statement cancels out the first. (2) You cannot truly believe JESUS is your Savior if your salvation is in any way dependent on you as well. (3) You cannot truly believe Jesus IS your Savior if you do not believe that He has indeed actually saved you. (4) The fact that you use the phrase “gain Heaven” proves you teach a self-works salvation, a works gospel, which is of course anti-Biblical since the Bible clearly teaches salvation is a GIFT of God (Eph. 2:8-9). (5) The fact that you claim you cannot know if you’ve “gained” Heaven until death indicates that you, in fact, do not believe Jesus ever did save you in this life time. You call Him “Savior,” but you deny that He actually saved you. This is the great contradiction of religion. All religion ultimately preaches salvation by works, actually nullifying the cross, whereas the Gospel as presented in God’s Word is always cross based and the free gift of God.
Continued…

Ozzie,

There is no contradiction because there is no contradiction in scripture. It is not an “either/or” but rather a “both and” situation. If this were not the case James could not say, “you are saved by works and not by faith alone.”

The only contradiction is that you contradict scripture. Please explain to me what James means when he compares faith and works to the body and spirit. In James 2:26 he says, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” You cannot separate faith and works the way you attempt to in your understanding of justification. The analogy by James does not allow it.

 

[twf]

Ozzie:

I never said RCs don’t know Christ. RC doctrine fails to understand the salvation Christ procured and secured through His once for all sacrificial death on the cross. This remarkable truth is revealed in the Bible, hence, to teach differently would be anti-Biblical. And some things taught by RC’ism is simply non-Biblical, such as the Marian doctrines. What can I say?Well, obviously I take issue with your statement that the RC doctrines on salvation are the “ancient, orthodox, (esp.) apostolic understanding of salvation.” The Roman Church claimes catholicity, i.e., that it is THE universal Church, but claiming this doesn’t make it a reality. I belong to the “Catholic” Church, but not the “Roman” Catholic church. And I disagree with much of its teaching on salvation, as you have seen by my posts. Sorry, my friend, but “RC” and RC’ism are terms that describe your particular religion and beliefs. And many of your beliefs are not Catholic (universal). At this request I felt like posting one of those little smiley faces “rolling on the floor laughing.” My friend, your post is six pages long. I don’t have time to write a book refuting a long list of Bible verses out of context. This is not the medium for that. Just quoting a bunch of verses mean nothing and it is near impossible to reply to all of them. Be reasonable, my good man.

As I said earlier, the Church does indeed teach that salvation has been procured through Christ’s death on the cross. You must understand, though, that Christ’s work now must be applied to each of us individually…otherwise all would be saved automatically. I explained in my original post, that even your view requires human effort to be saved (you must accept Christ’s free gift of salvation and repent of your sins…this is a human effort, however you look at it, even though this effort is only possible because of grace, there is still something humans must do). The Catholic position is based on the constant teaching of the Church, as passed down by the Apostles. If you look at all of the Scriptures, not just a few passages here and there, within the context of what the Apostolic Church believed and taught, it becomes clear that justification is by grace alone, but that this grace leads to faith, which in turn leads to works, which play an important role in our justification.
(continued)

 

[twf]

Protestants start with the Pauline letters for their understanding of justification. Is this fair? Jesus is the founder of our religion, not to mention our God, so should we not start with His teachings? Paul’s writings are an extension of His teachings, written to particular churches for varying reasons. Jesus’ parables again and again make it clear that justification is by the grace of God, but that works are an integral component of this justification. This is our way of responding to God’s grace, as long as the works are the fruit of grace. Did not our Lord say “Any tree that does not bear fruit shall be cut down and thrown into the fire.”? (Matt. 7:19). Our Lord, on multiple occasion, in parables and in sermons, emphasizes the importance of works. Never once does he say that only faith is necessary (as faith itself is a work, in a sense, as I explained in my original set of posts). Never would anyone get, from reading the Gospels, that works are unnecessary. It is only when you start with the letters of Paul, and then look at the teachings of Christ and St. James and try to force your understanding of Paul into those passages that one can say anything different. Just read, for example, Matthew 25. Can you honestly say that Jesus does not emphasize that works as necessary in this chapter? Never does He say, as the Protestant assumes He means, “I keep emphasizing works, but they don’t really play a role in justification, I just say this to point out that you will do good works if you are a true believer”…He suggests again and again that if your faith does not lead to works, there is no salvation. Paul is writing in the context of a Church that often tends towards a heresy that says the works of the Law are necessary for salvation, or that undermines the role of grace; thus he emphasizes faith, as it is the start of our Christian journey, and our initial response to God. But even Paul tells us that faith will lead to works, and warns that “the homosexual, fornicator, liar, etc…” shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. (This isn’t from any particular list of ‘mortal sins’ that Paul cites, I’m just giving an example of the type of things he lists, see for example 1 Cor. 6:9). As well he exhorts the faithful to “work out their salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). We do not need to work for our salvation, but we must work it out…allow the Spirit to work in our lives so that we produce fruit. Remember, faith without works is dead, and that such faith can not save us. (James 2:14-17).
(continued)

 

[twf]

I invite you to check out any of the articles at catholicoutlook.com/salvation.php#Faith%20and%20Works.
I also encourage you to consider reading Dave Armstrong’s “A Biblical Defence of Catholicism” (his site is ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM) and David Currie’s “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic”, both of which have excellent sections defending and explaining the Catholic understanding of salvation and justification.

As for the “preservation of the saints”, as Calvin called it, there are a multitude of verses that show otherwise, including many of the same passages I cited in defending justification by grace through faith and works. Please see any of the articles at catholicoutlook.com/salvation.php#Once-Saved-Always-Saved.

The Roman Church claimes catholicity, i.e., that it is THE universal Church, but claiming this doesn’t make it a reality. I belong to the “Catholic” Church, but not the “Roman” Catholic church. And I disagree with much of its teaching on salvation, as you have seen by my posts. Sorry, my friend, but “RC” and RC’ism are terms that describe your particular religion and beliefs. And many of your beliefs are not Catholic (universal).

You misunderstood my request, I’m sorry if I was unclear. I asked you not to continually refer to “RCism” and such because this understanding of salvation is held by all of the Catholic Church, not just the Roman Catholic Church. Let me explain. When I say “the Catholic Church” I mean all of those particular churches (that is, local, national, or ethical churches) that are in full communion with the Church of Rome (the Diocese of Rome that is) and it’s bishop. The Roman Rite of the Catholic Church does not cover all of these churches. There are the various Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches, the Maronite Catholic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankar Catholic Church, and the Chaldean Catholic Church. Each of these has customs, traditions, and structure that differ from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, but are yet in full communion with the Diocese of Rome and its bishop, the Pope. (An example of a tradition that differs in the Eastern Catholic Churches from the Roman or Latin Church is that Eastern Catholic priests may be married). As well, the other Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, also hold fast to the same understanding of salvation as we do, so I was pointing out that it is not just the “RC” system, as you put it.

At this request I felt like posting one of those little smiley faces “rolling on the floor laughing.” My friend, your post is six pages long. I don’t have time to write a book refuting a long list of Bible verses out of context. This is not the medium for that. Just quoting a bunch of verses mean nothing and it is near impossible to reply to all of them. Be reasonable, my good man.
OK, fine. I’m sorry. I obviously disagree that they are out of context…see above. The burden of proof is for you to show how they are out of context, I say the same is true of your verses, for the reasons I cite above. (Of course, the two books I mention will do a much better job of showing such in-depth).

God bless you.
In Christ,
Tyler

 

[twf]

(Sorry, you can’t easily differentiate between my response and Ozzie’s…it’s too late to edit now).

 

[Ozzie]

RBushlow:
I certainly am. Since they were taught by the Apostles, who were taught directly by Jesus, I think they may lead to a clearer understanding of what Jesus taught.Your brother in ChristFirst of all, there’s no such thing as “Church Fathers,” they were early writers. They wrote according to their own opinions, no different than me or you. The Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Jesus Christ being the corner stone (Eph. 2:20). If you want a clear understanding of what Jesus taught during His earthly ministry and after His bodily resurrection you would be better off diligently studying the N.T. Scriptures. None, absolutely none of those early writings are Holy Spirit inspired. Whom do you think knew more about what Jesus taught, the Holy Spirit or those writers? Jesus did not say to those writers, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (Jn. 14:26).

No dear brother, if you want a clear understanding study God’s Word.

P.S. I didn’t say I haven’t read any of those writings, but the the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures. And no, most of those deemed “Church Fathers” were not taught directly by the Apostles. Still, none were Apostles. You want the faith? Go to the foundation.

 

[MariaG]

There is nothing in the official teaching of purgatory that says it cannot and is not instantaneous.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

First of all, there’s no such thing as “Church Fathers,” they were early writers…

P.S. I didn’t say I haven’t read any of those writings, but the the authority for faith and doctrine derives from the Scriptures. And no, most of those deemed “Church Fathers” were not taught directly by the Apostles. Still, none were Apostles. You want the faith? Go to the foundation.

You say there is no such thing as the early “Church Fathers.” That is fine for you to say, but many of your own Protestant scholars make reference to them with this same title. Your opinion is fine, but it is merely an opinion. The fact that these writers were not apostles does not make them less trustworthy than their historical ties and position demands. Since they were either taught by the apostles or were taught by those taught directly by the apostles, they are certainly more reliable indicators as to how scripture was to be understood than either you or I. In fact your Protestant teachers and apologists have no such “bona fides” but you seem quite content to take their version over that of these early believers.

I would suggest Ozzie, that you read the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. He was a first century bishop and was discipled and ordained by the apostle John. Ignatius wrote seven letters to local churches on his way to Rome to be martyred. His letters are Catholic through and through. Coincidentally, he was the first person in writing that applied the term “catholic” to the early Christian Church. His writings reveal what the Catholic church has always taught, while non-Catholic teachings are no where to be found.

In light of the available history, it is hard for me to understand why anyone would believe anything other than that which is taught by the one authentic church that goes all the way back to the apostles. No other church can make that claim and no other church’s teachings are consistent with scripture or the earliest writings that followed the death of the last apostle.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

One other suggestion. If you decide to pursue any reading of the early Christian writers referred to as Church Father, please make sure that you do not get an edited version. There are reliable Protestant sources for these writings, but there are others that have taken certain liberties in editing out Catholic teaching. I used to own one of these versions. When I searched it for a quote from Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Church at Smyrna that pertained to the Eucharist. The reference made it clear that the Church believed that the Eucharist was truly the body and blood of the Lord. I noticed that it had been edited out. This was a dishonest act on the part of the publisher. I had already read other editions and knew what was contained in the text. The publishers did indicate that there was editing, but they did not indicate what it was that they had removed.

 

[vstar]

JesusFreak: What is your problem? Your question is stupid and I get the impression that you are either provocative or just having fun by leading us “on”. Also most of the people who took the bait and replied to your silly question gave equally silly answers. Nobody here on earth knows where you’re going; nobody on earth should even have an opinion about where you’re going. How on earth (or how the hell) could anyone know or even have an opinion. There’s only One who knows. And you must know who that is.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax & MariaG:

The only contradiction is that you contradict scripture. Please explain to me what James means when he compares faith and works to the body and spirit. In James 2:26 he says, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” You cannot separate faith and works the way you attempt to in your understanding of justification. The analogy by James does not allow it.

What James communicates in the second chapter of his letter does not invalidate what Paul fastidiously communicates regarding justification by faith alone in the third through fifth chapters of Romans.

The key to understanding what James communicates is the hypothesis he presents in Ja. 2:18:

“But someone may well SAY, 'you have faith, and I have works; SHOW ME your faith without the works, and I will SHOW YOU my faith BY my works.”
James is presenting the difference between a “true” faith and a mere “said” faith. That’s the key to understanding the logic James poses. Anyone can say he has faith, but true faith is always outwardly demonstrable by works.

Both Paul and James cite Abraham as an example. But Paul clearly points out that Abraham was justified, or reckoned righteous, by God through faith long before he “offered up Isaac on the altar,” the event James illustrates in his argument (see Ja. 2:21). In fact, Paul points out that Abraham was “reckoned righteous” even before he was circumcised, some 20 years before the actual event with Isaac (Rom. 4:10-11).

James does not deviate from faith to works as the justifying agent when he illustrates Abraham and Isaac as an example, as Beck clearly translates verse 24: “You see his faith was active with works and by works reached its goal.” In other words, Abraham did not simply have a “said” faith, but a true faith which was demonstrated in his life by works. Yet, it was not the works that justified him, but his faith which motivated and produced works, even twenty some years after he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:5).

A man of true faith, opposed to a “said” faith, will ALWAYS demonstrate works in his life. That’s why James concludes, “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (i.e., a mere “said” faith). As the body is animated by the spirit, faith is animated by works. And this takes us right back to James’ original statement, "I will SHOW you my faith by my works.

The legalist always distorts James and tries to put him at odds with Paul. But the astute believer sees that it’s actually the legalist who has the mere “said” faith, because, ultimately, he trusts in his own works to save and justify him before God – not the Person and work of Christ alone. Consequently, and quite contrary to Scripture, he believes (and teaches others, as well) that no one can actually know in this life time if they have eternal life. You see, a “said” is no faith at all.

 

[Ozzie]

Pax:

I would suggest Ozzie, that you read the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. He was a first century bishop and was discipled and ordained by the apostle John. Ignatius wrote seven letters to local churches on his way to Rome to be martyred. His letters are Catholic through and through. Coincidentally, he was the first person in writing that applied the term “catholic” to the early Christian Church. His writings reveal what the Catholic church has always taught, while non-Catholic teachings are no where to be found.

In light of the available history, it is hard for me to understand why anyone would believe anything other than that which is taught by the one authentic church that goes all the way back to the apostles. No other church can make that claim and no other church’s teachings are consistent with scripture or the earliest writings that followed the death of the last apostle.

The word “Catholic” simply means universal. I have no problem with that. Now what today’s Roman Catholic does is pour the full time-developed meaning of the Roman Catholic religion, with all its doctrines formed down through the centuries into that word when used by these early writers. I myself believe in the Catholic (universal) Church. But I do not accept the church of Rome’s claim to exclusive catholicity.