A Common Assumption Among Catholicism & Protestants

[concretecamper]

Which has been nicely refuted by others, don't you think?

no, it's the same old infused vs imputed righteousness argument. I've seen many times, and as in the thread, the imputed side usually loses.

But hey, if you want to own Luther calling you a snow covered dunghill, God Bless you.

 

[Clare73]

no,

Even in light of post #449?

it's the same old infused vs imputed righteousness argument.

That is not the argument at all.

It's justification (declared righteous) either by imputation or by works of merit.

"Infused" righteousness is sanctification.

I've seen many times, and as in the thread, the imputed side loses.

But hey, if you want to own Luther calling you a snow covered dunghill, God Bless you.

Don't know much about Luther other than he was a Catholic monk. . .so who merited that appellation?

 

[Buzzard3]

Oxymoron. . .because he was righteous, he would not consider disobeying

Really? People who are justified by faith disobey God on a regular basis.

 

[Buzzard3]

there is only true faith and counterfeit faith

I can't find any mention of "counterfeit" faith in the Bible. Funny that. Most likely, it's another of your fantastic inventions.

 

[Clare73]

Really? People who are justified by faith disobey God on a regular basis.

I doubt they disobey a direct audible command from God when they have been receiving such and obeying them for 75 years.

 

[Clare73]

I can't find any mention of "counterfeit" faith in the Bible. Funny that. Most likely, it's another of your fantastic inventions.

< sigh >

Need to spend more time in your Bible. . .

Nor do I find any mention of "Trinity" in the Bible. Funny that. Likewise another fantastic invention?

I'll let you supply the nomenclature for the faith described in Matthew 7:21-23.

I think "counterfeit" is a great word for it.
And I also think "Trinity" is a great word for three persons in one God.

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

I doubt they disobey a direct audible command from God when they have been receiving such and obeying them for 75 years.

Adam and Eve lived in God's presence, but they still managed to disobey him.

 

[Clare73]

I didn't ask for what you think James 2:24 "means", but
how you think it should have originally been written.

That's above my paygrade.

Incidentally, don't you find it odd that you have TWO different definitions for the same word? You employ your fake definition for "justified" when reading James, but you employ the true definition for "justified" when reading Romans. It's hilarious.

Litigated in posts #215, #261, #264, #275, #280, #304, #440, #447. . .will not be relitigating it.

 

[Clare73]

Adam and Eve lived in God's presence, but they still managed to disobey him.

Everyone is not the same, nor is God the same with everyone (Romans 12:3; Ephesians 4:7).

 

[Buzzard3]

In Rev 3:4 they are declared worthy for not soiling their clothes.

... for their good works/obedience/holiness, in other words. Jesus declared them "worthy" of salvation due to their faith and works.

It is speaking figuratively, describing what they are, not what they have earned.

Oh, I get it ... being granted salvation due to their faith and works contradicts your doctrine, so Rev 3:4 must of course be "speaking figuratively".

The ol' "speaking figuratively" trick is the best Scripture-eraser ever invented.

 

[Buzzard3]

I kinda wish I was moderating this debate. You are attacking the person again. You refuse to allow that @Clare73 has made a valid point, by taking her words, instead of as reasoning concerning James' words, as a translation, inserting them into a space where the grammar turns out worse than awkward, as though that proves them invalid. She was not attempting to use them in a grammatically substitutive fashion, and you know it! And if that wasn't enough you do it again with an amended form of the 'translation'.

In James 2:24, the same word, "justified" is applied to both "works" and "faith". We know that to be "justified" by "faith" means to be "declared righteous" - so, by grammatical necessity, that same meaning must be applied to "works" as well. There is simply is no other option - "justified" in James 2:24 can't only have one meaning - "declared righteous".

In James 2:24, "justified" can't have one meaning for "works" and a different meaning for "faith". That would amount to a grammatical absurdity.

Dems da facts. If da facts contradict your doctrine, change your doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

In James 2:24, the same word, "justified" is applied to both "works" and "faith". We know that to be "justified" by "faith" means to be "declared righteous" - so, by grammatical necessity, that same meaning must be applied to "works" as well. There is simply is no other option - "justified" in James 2:24 can't only have one meaning - "declared righteous".
In James 2:24, "justified" can't have one meaning for "works" and a different meaning for "faith". That would amount to a grammatical absurdity.
Dems da facts. If da facts contradict your doctrine, change your doctrine.

Then in your facts, you make James doctrinally wrong because the NT is abundantly and emphatically clear in the plethora of Scriptures in post #439, and particularly in Romans 4:9-11 regarding Abraham's circumcision (Genesis 17:4) that
Abraham was
justified (made righteous)
before he was circumcised (when he believed, 6:15) and
not after he was circumcised (not when he offered Isaac, 22:10).

 

[Buzzard3]

Then in your facts, you make James doctrinally wrong because the NT is abundantly and emphatically clear in the plethora of Scriptures in post #439, and particularly in Romans 4:9-11 regarding Abraham's circumcision (Genesis 17:4) that
Abraham was
justified (made righteous)
before he was circumcised (when he believed, 6:15) and
not after he was circumcised (not when he offered Isaac, 22:10).

Don"t blame me - I didn't write the Scriptures.

If the Scriptures contradict your doctrine, change your doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

Don"t blame me - I didn't write the Scriptures.

Correct. . you interpteted them, choosing which to use of Strong's two definitions regarding the meaning of "justify," provided by you in post #275; i.e.,
1) to show, prove (righteous),
2) to declare righteous.

I chose #1, reconciling Scripture to itself, while
you chose #2, setting Scripture against itself,

and making James doctrinally wrong in light of abundant NT apostolic teaching (presented
in posts #439, #440).
.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I think the works faith thing is really simple.

True faith produces good works. That is why Paul wrote Eph 2:10

Ephesians 2:10
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Why did the driver drive away so fast. It is just a kitty cat.