Not By Faith Alone

[Redbandito]

You are shifting your position so often you seem to forget what you are saying. Here is where you said it:

No here you state if we “say faith alone, with those two items” incorporated into it you could go along with it. The two items you are referring to are repentance and baptism. So contrary to your claim that you “NOWHERE” said it, you most definitely did, Slick

LOL! Okay Buddy, let me try to break it down for you. I didn’t argue for “faith alone.” I didn’t even say I would use such unBiblical terminology. All I said was that if by faith alone, repentance and baptism are assumed, then I could go with it. Yet, notice that this directly contradicts faith “ALONE.” So, contrary to your attempts to show I am being inconsistent, I have NOWHERE stated I believe in faith alone, much less argued for it. I tend to try to stick to the terminology that the Bible uses, and the Bible says we are “born again” through baptism. Acts 2:38 tells us we must “repent and be baptized” to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is indeed the way we are reborn into God’s family. And finally, despite the fact that Jam 2 is not talking about initial justification, it does say “not by faith alone,” thus I will not use such a phrase which has clearly confused millions of well-meaning Christians. So let me give you a right back bud, and ask you to stop trying to win a debate and start trying to understand the Catholic position better.

 

[Redbandito]

The specific issue Paul is addressing in Romans 4 is the claim that Christians needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. But we also know from Acts 15 that circumcision entailed observance of the Mosaic Law. That is why Paul says that through observance of the law (Law of Moses) no man will be justified. Paul was condemning those who claimed that they were righteous before God , were members of His people, and had a claim on his mercy because they were biological descendants of Abraham, circumcised, and observed the law of Moses.

God Bless,
Michael

Mike, that is exactly what I have been arguing. Have you been following the discussion? I have previously stated in this discussion that the Jews were trying to make claims to justification based on being Jewish. Paul states that this is not what justifies them. Show me where I have disagreed with that.

 

[SolaScriptura]

LOL! Okay Buddy, let me try to break it down for you. I didn’t argue for “faith alone.”

Of course you argued for it in your response to me. You argue for faith alone being inaccurate because it also included repentance and baptism. However, if those two were included you could go for it. That was an argument for it in that sense, no matter how you slice it. You get to hung up on exact wordings instead of the thought and concept that is being portrayed. That is your problem in our discussion about the Gospel, but I digress.

Redbandito:

I didn’t even say I would use such unBiblical terminology. All I said was that if by faith alone, repentance and baptism are assumed, then I could go with it.

LOL … are you sure you are not John Kerry? I would not use it, but I could go for it? There is no real difference between the two.

Yet, notice that this directly contradicts faith “ALONE.” So, contrary to your attempts to show I am being inconsistent, I have NOWHERE stated I believe in faith alone, much less argued for it.

My point wasn’t to argue that it was faith alone in the Protestant sense. I was taking your definition and using it to show it doesn’t work.

I tend to try to stick to the terminology that the Bible uses, and the Bible says we are “born again” through baptism. Acts 2:38 tells us we must “repent and be baptized” to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is indeed the way we are reborn into God’s family

Yeah, so I guess you don’t use Trinity, Grace Alone, Mother of God, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc. You are a piece of work my friend. LOL

And finally, despite the fact that Jam 2 is not talking about initial justification, it does say “not by faith alone,” thus I will not use such a phrase which has clearly confused millions of well-meaning Christians. So let me give you a right back bud, and ask you to stop trying to win a debate and start trying to understand the Catholic position better.

Actually, I understand the Catholic position very well. You haven’t told me a thing in this discussion that I don’t already know or I haven’t already heard before. I’ve heard and read from almost every major Catholic apologist alive today and many of the internet apologists, but I digress. You are missing the point of my questions. It was not to prove my position so your comment about James not saying, “not by faith alone” is irrelevant. I want to see how your system deals with data. So once again if we go back to Abraham. You tell me what kind of justification took place in the following verses and what was instrumental causes of the justification.

1. 
   *]Genesis 12 per Hebrews 11:8
   *]Genesis 15 per Romans 4 and Galatians 3
   *]Genesis 22 per James 2
   
   Anxious to read your reply.
   
   Grace and Peace,
   S.S.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Mike, that is exactly what I have been arguing. Have you been following the discussion? I have previously stated in this discussion that the Jews were trying to make claims to justification based on being Jewish. Paul states that this is not what justifies them. Show me where I have disagreed with that.

LOL!! No it is not. You have been arguing that the moral law was not part of the argument when Paul says “observing the law”.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

S.S.:

Second, the author of Hebrews explicitly state they had the Gospel preached to them as we do. The we refers to those living after the death and resurrection of Christ. So the question is do you believe the inspired author or your own private interpretation ?

That is a false dichotomy, and also an entirely hypocritical question. I believe my interpretation OF the inspired author.

You claimed it was a false dichotomy, but you didn’t demonstrate how it was. Actually you went on to make my point, because if you believe your interpretation OF the inspired author that still equates to your private interpretation. Unless you are claiming this is the teaching of the unanimous consent of the fathers, are you?

The interesting fact to me is that you seem to assume that your interpretation is synonomous with what the author was trying to convey, not acknowledging that you too are “interpreting” the text. The question is never whether we are interpreting, but whether we are doing so correctly. It’s called exegesis. Why do you think there are so many denominations within Christianity all claiming to be the true Biblical Church?

The point being made is that the author says they had the gospel preached to them just like we did. But you are saying they only had part of the Gospel preached to them. Now that is esiegesis and not exegesis, because the text doesn’t say that. In no place in all the NT where it speaks of the OT saints receiving the Gospel does it implicitly say anything about part of the Gospel.

Redbandito:

Apparently you want to continue to talk past me. I have already stated that the faith of Abraham is the same faith that is required of Christians. What I am disputing is what Abraham was putting his faith in. Please follow the discussion.

He was putting his faith in the Messiah just as we are.

Redbandito:

Abraham believed God would bless the world through his line. Is that the full message of the Gospel? What is the Gospel to you? Please explain what the Good News is in your estimation.

The Gospel is the good news that God has provided a Savior for the world. It is in Him that we are to put our trust for taking away our sins and we receiving a righteousness from God. We can never be good enough to merit eternal life, so it is only based on faith in the Messiah and His works. That is the essence of the Gospel. Now this Gospel can be presented in many different ways and even with more details at some points, but nonetheless each is in essence the same Gospel.

Redbandito:

S.S.:

You went off on a tangent when I quoted Romans 1:3 about you not denying the Messiah would be God himself, but that is not required for them to have the same Gospel. This is an artificial requirement you have injected into the Gospel and not one the NT authors have stated. We have the same thing in Galatians 3 where the Apostle Paul states the following:…

What tangent was that? You can’t even represent what I said correctly. What I said was that the people of the Old Covenant believed there would be a Messiah. What they did not have revealed to them, and therefore could not have believed, was that the Messiah would be God Himself.

Maybe it didn’t come out clearly, but that is what I was intending to say. My point being, the Messiah being God himself is not necessary element to say we have the same Gospel. Now don’t get me wrong, it is a necessary article of faith, just like the Trinity, the resurrection, and host of other doctrines because of greater revelation. But all essential Christian beliefs are not properly speaking the Gospel.

Redbandito:

You dispute that, but have provided nothing to contradict it. You keep citing verses that show that the Gospel was preached to them. Great! I believe that! But you then assume that it was the Gospel in it’s fullness that was preached. That’s begging the question. For if the Jews had the fullness of divine revelation, and no more was necessary to be revealed for our salvation, why did Christ come?

I have stated over and over that they did not have full revelation and even the revelation they had was in types, shadows, sacrifices, and offerings. So of course anyone with common understandings of these things would know types and shadows do not tell the entire story as clearly as the anti-type and fulfillment. However, they do communicate the Gospel, though in the way that is peculiar to them.

Redbandito:

And again, what is the Gospel SS? I believe the Good News is that God became man, suffered, died, was crucified, and resurrected so that we may have eternal life, if we believe in Him. Is that not the Gospel you preach?

Yes, I can agree that that is the Gospel, but it would equally be the Gospel if I said:

Knowing we are dead in our sins, God sent a Savior who would take on the sins of the world. By putting faith in this anointed one that God sent you may have eternal life!

Same Gospel my friend. one is not as clear as the other, but the Gospel nonetheless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But James is not talking about initial justification, because he is speaking of works and he mentions Abraham’s justification in Genesis 22. We know that Abraham was justified before that. I would say Genesis 15 and you may even say earlier. So James 2:24 should have no bearing on how you answer that question. It is clear that baptism in Jn 3:5 and Acts 2:38 are not required for initial justification because Paul is arguing that Abraham was justified by faith in Romans 4 and there was no baptism. So your objections to saying faith alone doesn’t seem to add up.

Let me also ask you this, when did Abraham receive his initial justification? Genesis 12, 15, 22 or at some other point?

Who is James addressing in chapter 2? Well, let’s see:

“My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism.” (James 2:1)

Is James a believer with saving faith? I think we can agree affirmatively. James calls them “brothers” and identifies himself with them, and he acknowledges they are “believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ”.

So, James is addressing brothers who have a saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, notice what he says to them in verse 14: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”

Is he speaking to true brothers who have real, “saving faith” about those who don’t actually have “saving faith” but only think they do? NO! In verses 16 and 17, James says, If one of **you [emphasis added] **says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

So, speaking to believers who have “saving faith” about “saving faith” that has no works, James declares that faith to be useless, to be dead. And he concludes in James 2:24 when under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he writes, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

Finally, SolaScriptura, you can review the Church’s teaching easily enough online; this link will take you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church beginning at the section on Salvation, Justification, Law and Grace:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#1987

 

[SolaScriptura]

So, speaking to believers who have “saving faith” about “saving faith” that has no works, James declares that faith to be useless, to be dead. And he concludes in James 2:24 when under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he writes, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

Randy, explain this to me. If the faith is “saving” how is it useless? A “saving faith” and a “dead faith” cannot be the same thing. So you are justified by what you do, is that what you are saying?

 

[mikeledes]

Baptism is not a work by which we merit justification. Rather, it is the means God Himself has chosen to confer the gift of righteousness.

Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Faith implies baptism because once a person comes to believe, he/she accepts God’s gift of righteousness by being baptized.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Randy, explain this to me. If the faith is “saving” how is it useless? A “saving faith” and a “dead faith” cannot be the same thing. So you are justified by what you do, is that what you are saying?

The distinction James is making is not between “dead” faith and genuine faith. I’m not saying you’re saying that, but I just want to make this clear. The distinction he is making is between productive faith versus unproductive faith. James is warning Christians not to rely on faith alone for their ultimate salvation. He is reminding them that being justified does not mean that all obligations affecting our salvation are eliminated. Rather, justification comes with an obligation to obey God by serving Him in righteousness. Faith alone, if it is not followed up by works, will not bear its ultimate fruit (final salvation) and hence it is as useful as the mere intellectual beliefs of demons. We are justified by grace through faith, but we preserve and increase this justification by grace through faith working through love.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Redbandito]

Baptism is not a work by which we merit justification. Rather, it is the means God Himself has chosen to confer the gift of righteousness.

Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Faith implies baptism because once a person comes to believe, he/she accepts God’s gift of righteousness by being baptized.

God Bless,
Michael

Agreed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The distinction James is making is not between “dead” faith and genuine faith. I’m not saying you’re saying that, but I just want to make this clear. The distinction he is making is between productive faith versus unproductive faith. James is warning Christians not to rely on faith alone for their ultimate salvation. He is reminding them that being justified does not mean that all obligations affecting our salvation are eliminated. Rather, justification comes with an obligation to obey God by serving Him in righteousness. Faith alone, if it is not followed up by works, will not bear its ultimate fruit (final salvation) and hence it is as useful as the mere intellectual beliefs of demons. We are justified by grace through faith, but we preserve and increase this justification by grace through faith working through love.

God Bless,
Michael

Hi Michael,

As usual very well put. Of course coming from the Protestant perspective I would differ on some things.

I would say an unproductive faith is in essence a dead faith that does not save. I agree he is warning those who profess to be be Christians if you have not love for your brothers and if you have no fruits of the faith, then you probably don’t have saving faith. A true faith will produce fruits of righteousness as our father Abraham demonstrated, when he was justified by faith alone in Gen 15 he vindicated this justification by his works(i.e. Gen 22). We do persevere, but not in a sense to increase our justification, how could we? If justification is being right with God there is nothing to increase. We persevere in that we are always believing and trusting in God amidst the attacks of the world, the flesh, and devil.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, explain this to me. If the faith is “saving” how is it useless? A “saving faith” and a “dead faith” cannot be the same thing. So you are justified by what you do, is that what you are saying?

Your question goes to the crux of the problem for the sola scriptura proponent.

James is not talking about a dead faith when he addresses his brothers. He is talking about the real McCoy and not some substandard faith.

And what he says is that faith, any faith - by itself - no matter how good it it - is not enough because we are NOT saved by faith alone.

Thank you, Holy Spirit, for these clear words!

Now, as to your question on being justified by what I do, what does the Catechism say in this regard? How do you read it from the link I provided?

 

[Redbandito]

You claimed it was a false dichotomy, but you didn’t demonstrate how it was. Actually you went on to make my point, because if you believe your interpretation OF the inspired author that still equates to your private interpretation. Unless you are claiming this is the teaching of the unanimous consent of the fathers, are you?

I believe I did in fact show you how. Because it is not either my “private interpretation” or “the inspired author,” it’s both! It is only a dichotomy if you first assume that my own “private interpretation” is not that of the “inspired authors,” thus making it an either/or, which merely begs the question. My response was that it is a both/and. Unless you want to completely relativize everything and say that we can never truly know what the inspired author was saying, because it all boils down to private interpretation. Then I would simply disagree with you, and point out that you are in the same fix.

The point being made is that the author says they had the gospel preached to them just like we did. But you are saying they only had part of the Gospel preached to them. Now that is esiegesis and not exegesis, because the text doesn’t say that. In no place in all the NT where it speaks of the OT saints receiving the Gospel does it implicitly say anything about part of the Gospel.He was putting his faith in the Messiah just as we are.

Nonsense. I can make the same claims to you. First of all, it is COMMON SENSE, that one cannot know God without God revealing Himself. If you acknowledge that, then you acknowledge my point. If not, I have nothing more to say on the issue. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

The Gospel is the good news that God has provided a Savior for the world. It is in Him that we are to put our trust for taking away our sins and we receiving a righteousness from God. We can never be good enough to merit eternal life, so it is only based on faith in the Messiah and His works. That is the essence of the Gospel. Now this Gospel can be presented in many different ways and even with more details at some points, but nonetheless each is in essence the same Gospel.

Many different ways to present it? Possibly in presentation, but not in material. The Messiah was God Incarnate. Do you not think that is significant for our Gospel? If not, then I have nothing more on this issue either.

Maybe it didn’t come out clearly, but that is what I was intending to say. My point being, the Messiah being God himself is not necessary element to say we have the same Gospel. Now don’t get me wrong, it is a necessary article of faith, just like the Trinity, the resurrection, and host of other doctrines because of greater revelation. But all essential Christian beliefs are not properly speaking the Gospel.

But this one is! That Jesus was God Incarnate, died, and was resurrected is absolutely part of the Gospel. Jn 3:16. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” I am sure you know that verse quite well. This is the Good News! That God sent His son, Jesus to save us. Be honest and admit that I’m right on this.

I have stated over and over that they did not have full revelation and even the revelation they had was in types, shadows, sacrifices, and offerings. So of course anyone with common understandings of these things would know types and shadows do not tell the entire story as clearly as the anti-type and fulfillment. However, they do communicate the Gospel, though in the way that is peculiar to them.

This is an absolute admission then that they did not have a complete understanding of the Gospel, as you admit they couldn’t have, and therefore received the “Gospel” differently than Christians. It’s okay to say it. It is the logical end to your thought.

Yes, I can agree that that is the Gospel, but it would equally be the Gospel if I said:

Knowing we are dead in our sins, God sent a Savior who would take on the sins of the world. By putting faith in this anointed one that God sent you may have eternal life!

Same Gospel my friend. one is not as clear as the other, but the Gospel nonetheless.

Yet, God sending a savior who was not God, would not have saved us. In His infinite wisdom, God understands that the only way to redeem man eternally, is to make an eternal offering. And since, the only eternal being is God Himself, it had to be Him.

Furthermore, God had to take on human nature, in order that he might redeem it. For God offering His divine nature does not redeem humanity.

Therefore, integral to the full understanding of the Gospel, is that God became man.

 

[Redbandito]

LOL!! No it is not. You have been arguing that the moral law was not part of the argument when Paul says “observing the law”.

**What part of this quote did Mikeledes state that this was wrong? The specific issue Paul is addressing in Romans 4 is the claim that Christians needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. But we also know from Acts 15 that circumcision entailed observance of the Mosaic Law. That is why Paul says that through observance of the law (Law of Moses) no man will be justified. Paul was condemning those who claimed that they were righteous before God , were members of His people, and had a claim on his mercy because they were biological descendants of Abraham, circumcised, and observed the law of Moses.
**

Now I know Mike’s position on this topic. However, the post he made here, in NO WAY contradicts what you just stated my claim was. Where did Mike say that there could be no distinction? My argument has been, all along, that Paul was speaking against Jews who wanted to Judaize Gentiles. This is most specifically done by the observance of the law that distinguishes them as Jewish (i.e. Circumcision, etc). And while I also have stated that I agree that no keeping of the moral law initially justifies us before God, I made clear that I don’t believe that is what Paul is speaking of in the context of Rom 4. So, this was basically the longwinded way of me saying that there is nothing in his post that I disagreed with.

 

[mikeledes]

Your question goes to the crux of the problem for the sola scriptura proponent.

James is not talking about a dead faith when he addresses his brothers. He is talking about the real McCoy and not some substandard faith.

And what he says is that faith, any faith - by itself - no matter how good it it - is not enough because we are NOT saved by faith alone.

Thank you, Holy Spirit, for these clear words!

Now, as to your question on being justified by what I do, what does the Catechism say in this regard? How do you read it from the link I provided?

Thanks for the compliment Sola Scriptura. I have to agree with Randy here. James is only talking about genuine faith. This is supported by 2 Peter 1:5-9 (NIV)

**For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. **

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Faith does not automatically produce works. Works represent an act of the will and hence involve “effort.” In this passage, Peter points to the possibilility of someone having genuine faith (i.e. "has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins), but has not added all of the qualities he listed that are necessary to be fruitful/productive. According to James, such a person, while having experienced the first stage of salvation (i.e. justification) will not enjoy its final stage (i.e. eternal glory, entrance into the eternal kingdom).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

I believe I did in fact show you how. Because it is not either my “private interpretation” or “the inspired author,” it’s both! It is only a dichotomy if you first assume that my own “private interpretation” is not that of the “inspired authors,” thus making it an either/or, which merely begs the question. My response was that it is a both/and.
Unless you want to completely relativize everything and say that we can never truly know what the inspired author was saying, because it all boils down to private interpretation. Then I would simply disagree with you, and point out that you are in the same fix.

It is your church that has relativize anyone knowing anything without an infallible interpreter. Don’t you know how often that charge is laid at the Protestant feet every day? From the Catholic perspective we have always been in that “fix”, I’m just glad to have some company Welcome neighbor.

 

[Redbandito]

Of course you argued for it in your response to me. You argue for faith alone being inaccurate because it also included repentance and baptism. However, if those two were included you could go for it. That was an argument for it in that sense, no matter how you slice it. You get to hung up on exact wordings instead of the thought and concept that is being portrayed. That is your problem in our discussion about the Gospel, but I digress.

LOL … are you sure you are not John Kerry? I would not use it, but I could go for it? There is no real difference between the two.

Quick grammar lesson here. Could= “To have the possibility.” In other words, “it’s possible.” Nowhere did I say I would. And I certainly didn’t argue for the use of such terminology. And as far as specific terminology not being important, I think your attitude toward that is much more indicative of the communication issues occurring. But I accept my part. The message received is the message sent. I will try to explain my position better in the future. And please don’t ever compare me to that manipulative, unpatriotic, guy, John Kerry.

My point wasn’t to argue that it was faith alone in the Protestant sense. I was taking your definition and using it to show it doesn’t work…

No kidding. That is why I rejected “Faith Alone.” Because it ultimately makes no sense to say “Faith alone, but you have to repent and be baptized as well.” I stated it was possible (not probable or likely) under these conditions to say such a phrase do see where you were going.

Yeah, so I guess you don’t use Trinity, Grace Alone, Mother of God, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc. You are a piece of work my friend. LOL.

My goodness. The point I was making was simply that I use terminology that connects with the Bible. I thought you were all about “understanding what is being said” and not “exact language.” It certainly is not Biblical to use the phrase, “Faith Alone” unless you are preceding this phrase with “not by.” That is simply my point. Period.

Actually, I understand the Catholic position very well. You haven’t told me a thing in this discussion that I don’t already know or I haven’t already heard before. I’ve heard and read from almost every major Catholic apologist alive today and many of the internet apologists, but I digress. You are missing the point of my questions. It was not to prove my position so your comment about James not saying, “not by faith alone” is irrelevant. I want to see how your system deals with data. So once again if we go back to Abraham. You tell me what kind of justification took place in the following verses and what was instrumental causes of the justification…

Yeah, your understanding of the Catholic position comes off quite clearly.

1. 
   *]Genesis 12 per Hebrews 11:8
   *]Genesis 15 per Romans 4 and Galatians 3
   *]Genesis 22 per James 2
   Anxious to read your reply.
   
   Grace and Peace,
   S.S.

1. 1. Initial justification
   2. Justification
   3. Justification
   I don’t exactly know what you’re looking for here. I think the better question is what do YOU believe about these three events? You have been “testing my system” enough. I think everyone sees where I stand. Where do you stand?

 

[Redbandito]

It is your church that has relativize anyone knowing anything without an infallible interpreter. Don’t you know how often that charge is laid at the Protestant feet every day? From the Catholic perspective we have always been in that “fix”, I’m just glad to have some company Welcome neighbor.

No Sir. You misunderstand infallibility. This does not mean that the Catholic Church has an official infallible stance on every verse of the Bible. Pope BXVI has not gone through and infallibly exegeted the whole of Scripture. The Church infallibly teaches Apostolic Tradition (on matters of faith and morals), which is the lens by which we may interpret the Bible. As long as I do not contradict this Tradition, there is a little room for private interpretation. However, I must always stay within this Tradition. Thus, we still stay across town from you.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

Now I know Mike’s position on this topic. However, the post he made here, in NO WAY contradicts what you just stated my claim was. Where did Mike say that there could be no distinction? My argument has been, all along, that Paul was speaking against Jews who wanted to Judaize Gentiles. This is most specifically done by the observance of the law that distinguishes them as Jewish (i.e. Circumcision, etc). And while I also have stated that I agree that no keeping of the moral law initially justifies us before God, I made clear that I don’t believe that is what Paul is speaking of in the context of Rom 4. So, this was basically the longwinded way of me saying that there is nothing in his post that I disagreed with.

Here is the relevant quote from Michael:

Michael:

That is why Paul says that through observance of the law (Law of Moses) no man will be justified. Paul was condemning those who claimed that they were righteous before God , were members of His people, and had a claim on his mercy because they were biological descendants of Abraham, circumcised, and observed the law of Moses.

“Observance of the law” is in the context of Romans 4. It is right at the end of Romans 3 and we know there are not chapters in the original. Here is what it says:

Romans 3:27-28
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

Also you will notice it speaks of boasting in this law keeping just as Romans 4 does. You have been restricting the phrase “observing the law” to the ceremonial law only as is demonstrated in this quote from you, with emphasis yours:

Redbandito:

I said that when Paul does contrast works with faith, it is nearly always in the context of “works of the law,” which you nicely proved for me by these citations. Notice your citation of Gal 3:2. What does he state? “Did you receive the Spirit by OBSERVING THE LAW?” Thus, the works Paul speaks of here, are those of the Mosaic ceremonial law.

So you are restricting “observing the law” to the ceremonial law, where Michael encompasses all of the Mosaic law under that term, which was my argument. So you don’t really agree with him.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No Sir. You misunderstand infallibility.

On the contrary my friend.

This does not mean that the Catholic Church has an official infallible stance on every verse of the Bible. Pope BXVI has not gone through and infallibly exegeted the whole of Scripture.

I never said it did. You have to read a bit more carefully. But since there is no infallible interpretation of this specific verse you are relying on your own private interpretation, right?

The Church infallibly teaches Apostolic Tradition (on matters of faith and morals), which is the lens by which we may interpret the Bible. As long as I do not contradict this Tradition, there is a little room for private interpretation. However, I must always stay within this Tradition. Thus, we still stay across town from you.

There is no Apostolic Tradition that tells you how to interpret that verse. Furthermore, just because you are within the bounds of the Tradition it doesn’t mean you are not in error in your private interpretation. So welcome back to the neighbor