It’s called exegesis. A key factor being the context of the passage and not creating a pretext of it.Okay, So James, like many of the other apostles, suffered from some mental impairment that caused him to write simple statements having a meaning entirely the opposite of what was written.
It’s called exegesis. A key factor being the context of the passage and not creating a pretext of it.
It boils down to two approaches.Not sure this belongs in the controversial section, but we'll see how it goes anyway.
Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone is what excommunicated Luther from Rome and began the Reformation, correct? My question then is, if there are any since then who have adopted again a belief of some kind in salvation by faith plus works, should they still be considered more in line with the Reformation or the likes of Rome again?
Only if they are creating a pretext.And when someone disagrees with your conclusion, it's called eisegesis.
Which words do you have in mind?Perhaps on this Palm Sunday, we should look to the words of Jesus to see what we must do to be saved. As I recall, he was even asked that question and he answered it. For some strange reason..... almost no one here ever quotes Jesus when it comes to explaining what we must do to be saved. I wonder why?
"So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Jms 2:7 and done. But I found the 'Catholic' theology on this was simply the normal Christian theology stated in a somewhat different dialect, but saying the same thing, and wonderfully broad and well stated in the catechism section on justification.Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reconcile James and Ephesians without developing a theology that flatly contradicts Scripture (let me give you a tip - the Catholic Church has already done it).
I'll stick to Haydock, but thank you.Only if they are creating a pretext.
Which is usually showcased by a lack of being able or refusing to conduct an expository examination of Holy Scriptures.
For good examples of expository examination see the posts by @Jonaitis and @Danthemailman
And apparently the man failed Christ’s examination. He said he lacked something and the man would not give it up. Then when His Apostles asked him how it was possible for anyone to be saved, Jesus said it is impossible for man but not for God.Perhaps on this Palm Sunday, we should look to the words of Jesus to see what we must do to be saved. As I recall, he was even asked that question and he answered it. For some strange reason..... almost no one here ever quotes Jesus when it comes to explaining what we must do to be saved. I wonder why?
Simple, we are saved by grace, through faith to do works. However, "if [faith] is not accompanied by action, is dead." After all, "Even the demons believe [in Jesus] and shudder."Amen. A person is saved by grace, through faith, and not of works just as Sacred Scripture states.
But Sacred Scripture states nowhere that "a man is saved by faith alone", and this flatly contradicts James.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reconcile James and Ephesians without developing a theology that flatly contradicts Scripture (let me give you a tip - the Catholic Church has already done it).
Is that an official Roman Catholic commentary with Magisterium approval?I'll stick to Haydock, but thank you.
Well yes, in some senses one can say "salvation is by faith alone" if understood properly. I think the pope actually said that a few years back in a speech."So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Jms 2:7 and done. But I found the 'Catholic' theology on this was simply the normal Christian theology stated in a somewhat different dialect, but saying the same thing, and wonderfully broad and well stated in the catechism section on justification.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification
So it's like we already agree (and did really long before it was realized), and perhaps that is why the Lutheran and Catholic agreement about Justification was reachable (as it was about just understanding, it would seem, being able to comprehend just what the other group's wording actually is intended to mean). I think it's an illusion based on how words are used to think there is much difference between the mainstream Christian viewpoints pretty often. In other words a lot of seeming doctrinal differences are about overemphasizing and not understanding the other side. Not all, but more than a few.
Well that depends. In your question, please clarify (i) "the instance" and (ii) "the rule".No need. Are you denying that the instance was used to teach the rule?
That declaration has a fair amount of content, though it's been a while since I read in it.Well yes, in some senses one can say "salvation is by faith alone" if understood properly. I think the pope actually said that a few years back in a speech.
I think there are still some disagreements between Lutheran and Catholic understandings about justification at a more fundamental level, but there is a lot of agreement, as noted in the joint declaration.
If that be the case then argue from Scriptures and not pitting verses against each other thus a pretext.I have not created a pretext for anything and I have two thousand years of Christianity agreeing with me.