St James specifically excludes justification by faith alone and says that good works work with faith and complete faith. Your pastor friend deceived you because he was trying to get you to believe that the Bible says the exact opposite of what it says.

I'm not sure that the pastor was doing what you assert. It sounds to me that he is trying to show that the Bible says the same thing throughout its pages.

No, Tim. The pastor's alleged comments were specifically directed to claiming that the Bible teaches that justification (however you define that word; we'll get to that in a minute) is by faith ALONE. No such statement exists in all of Scripture. There IS a verse that says that justification is NOT by faith alone (James 2:24). If we are to be consistent with Scripture, you cannot ignore it. The pastor apparently did. His comments showed nothing but his own unfounded prejudices in the matter.

There is not a one among the Christians on this BBS who would deny that justification is by works. What they deny is that James meant it the way Roman Catholicism interprets it. Justification is by works, and not by faith alone. I just don't think that Roman Catholicism's interpretation of that verse is correct. But the verse itself is true, nonetheless. It think the pastor to whom you refer above would confess as much.

You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "justification." You are using the same tactic that Calvin and others (eg, R. C. Sproul) have used in the past to avoid the literal meaning of the text. You are going to tell me that "justification" in James means "outward proof" or "visible verification" of the inward grace of salvation, and that it is not the same as the meaning St Paul uses which is forensic/moral/soteriological. You are going to claim (correctly) that the semantic field of "dikaioo" and its cognates includes such a concept of verification and that (incorrectly) it should be applied to the word's use in James. In brief you will claim that St James is talking about being "justified before men" and that St Paul is talking about being "justified before God." You and they are wrong. I will show you why.

1) The founder of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, made no excuses. He stated quite frankly that the teaching in James was diametrically opposed to "justification by faith alone" (jbfa). For this reason he condemned it as "a right strawy epistle" and condemned the book as a pharisaic tract that did not contain any mention of the "gospel." On more than one occasion he declared "away with Jimmy", "cast jimmy into the fire" and simliar words of derision. He banished it to the back of the NT and declared it apocryphal. As such, Herr Luther was much more honest than his spiritual forbears. Since he invented jbfa, he should know what was and wasn't consistent with it. For what it is worth, your own spiritual founder agrees with the Catholic interpretation of James!

2) James in the NT is classified as "wisdom literature" and has a strong connection to the "Q" material from Matthew (The Sermon on the Mount) and Luke (The Sermon on the Plain) which are replete with moral aphorisms and warnings about the consequences of good and bad conduct. There is also a strong connection to other OT wisdom books including Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and Tobit. This is all well documented in the books "The Apocrypha and Pseuepigrapha" by R. H. Charles, "Jesus the Sage" by Ben Witherington III, and in a book called "James and Q" published by Sheffield Press about 7 years ago.

The wisdom literature was NEVER concerned with mere external behavior alone or with proving something "before men". The whole literary genre was intended to instruct people on how to conduct themselves in the light of the revelation of God to achieve the fulfillment of human life in the plan of God ultimately leading to eternal life. It was the tacit understanding of this literature that the wise man was pious and virtuous while the fool was filled with vice and impiety. Only the wise man was considered righteous before God. The fool was reprobate and lost. In the Jewish religion, the primary concern of the wisdom tradition was soteriological and it was directed towards the changing of hearts and minds to make men righteous before God. The hellenistic dichotomy between internal dispositions (ie faith and hope) and the external acts that flowed from them was unknown to the Hebrew mind. "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." (Proverbs 23:7, KJV).

In short as a piece of wisdom literature, James is exhorting Christians on how to BE saved, not on how to LOOK saved.

3) The clear message of James is blatantly exhortative and soteriological:

There is a lot more but you get the flavor of it. St James is clearly exhorting the Christians to be a "doers of the word" which "is able to save your souls." He also makes it clear that those who do not show mercy will be considered to have transgressed the whole law and will be judged without mercy. It is therefore abundantly clear that St James is exhorting good works unto salvation (not just unto a good reputation), and teaching that a mere fiduciary faith which lacks good works cannot save.

4) There are obvious parallels between the arguments by St James (Chapter 2) and those by St Paul (Romans 3&4). Christians must be doers of the law not just hearers (James 1:22; Romans 2:13). The relationship between justification, faith, and works is discussed (James 2; Romans 3). Abraham is called upon as an example (James 2:21; Romans 4). Both texts quote Genesis 15:6 (James 2:23; Romans 4:3). It is also generally acknowledged that Romans was written before James.

The obvious conclusion is that James was written in part to respond to erroneous interpretations of Romans that were circulating at that time. These erroneous interpretations were probably much like those of Luther. We know that there were some problematic interpreters of St Paul during the NT era (2 Peter 3:15-16; Acts 21:20). Consequently, James was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to GUIDE the Church's understanding of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans. St James was therefore intending to use the same meaning for justification as St Paul was though his definition of works was different. St Paul was speaking about "works of the law." St James was speaking about works of mercy.

The same prot tactic is used for Acts 2:38, Matthew 16:16-20, John 6, and any other text that does not conform to Protestant presuppostions.

We all have our presuppositions. Yours are different than mine. Thus, we come to different conclusions. You will note, however, that the Roman Catholic presuppositions are in full force when the same verses are interpreted. In fact, I would say that this tactic is used by the Magisterium to interpret these texts and any other text that does not conform to Roman Catholic presuppositions. The difference is not that we do not revere the teachings of the Bible. The difference is that we approach the Bible with a different set of presuppositions, although I don't think you have yet grasped what the "protestant" presuppositions are.

All right! Let's talk about that. What are the Protestant presuppositions and how do you think they differ from cath presupps?

I might add that Augustine's interpretation of Matthew 16:16-20 is not the same as Roman Catholicism's interpretation. It is likely that he read the passage with a different set of presuppositions than you do. Augustine's interpretation appears to have been the same as the one the protestants used during the reformation, but for some reason it came to be called a protestant invention, though it predated the reformation by about a thousand years.

St Auggustine referred to Matthew 16:16ff on several occasions. On some he emphasized our views. On others he explored other meanings of the text. (See the recent book "St Peter and the Keys".) The Catholic Church fully acknowledges that more than one thing is taught in Matthew 16:16ff. It not necessary that ONLY the papal primacy be derived from that text.

St Augustine believed in the primacy of Rome and in its authority to teach as the final arbiter of theological disputes. He never held either to a prot ecclesiology or to a prot view of teaching authority. B.B. Warfield in his essay on Augustine and Calvin admits that in St Auggy's thought "his theology of the Church took precedence over his theology of grace." Warfield decries the fact that St Augustine did not "advance " to Protestant views. We Catholics are proud of him for holding to the Gospel that he had received from the Apostles.

I should also note that most modern Protestant biblical scholars freely admit that the current Catholic interpretation of papal primacy in Matthew 16:16ff is correct. Most notably look at the newly completed 3 volume commentary on Matthew by Davies and Allies published by Cambridge. They examine 10 different interpretations of the section and conclude that only the "papal" one makes sense.

Regardless, St Augustine's opinion is fine but not even you are going to tell me that he was always right, are you? I submit that the opinions even of Doctors of the Church must conform to the intentions of the authors of Sacred Scripture both divine and human. If we can discern that intention, then THAT is what we must believe and any contrary opinions from anyone else must be discarded.

In essence, your faith is not in the words of Scripture but in the prot traditions and prot systematic theology.

It could be said, correctly you might agree, that your faith is not in the words of Scripture, but in the Magisterium's interpretation of the Scriptures.

No, I don't agree. The words of Scripture are normative for us. (See Card. Ratzinger's "Principles of Catholic Theology.") They possess the fullness of truth because they were written by God. That is what we mean by inspired. The words of Scripture are used whenever possible in dogmatic formulations for this reason. They are our primary source of doctrine. The Magisterium merely interprets the Scriptures when there is a dispute. It is charged with upholding what the Scriptures actually say and discerning which views are erroneous. It does not possess the fullness of truth but rather discerns and anathamatizes error. That is what we mean by infallible. (See Scott Hahn's article "Prima Scriptura.")

If you examine the documents of the Magisterium, you will see that they exemplify the above principles. Scripture PERMEATES the teachings of the Councils and the Popes. Very rarely does the Magisterium offer official interpretations of particular biblical texts to the exclusion of other interpetations.

This is one of your presuppositions: not that the Bible is true, but that the Magisterium's interpretation of it is true.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! The Scriptures possess the fullness of truth with no errors admixed. The Magisterium doesn't make mistakes, but its expositions are neither exhaustive nor the last word. More can always be said about theology since it reveals the inexhaustable infinity of God!

It is the Holy Spirit that wrote the Bible. That same Holy Spirit superintends the Magisterium. If there is anything in which our faith is grounded it is in the promise that Jesus gave to the Church:

Justification by faith alone is not a denial that Love is the greatest of the three. It is merely a confession that, of the three, only one is the revealed means by which Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Justification is neither by love nor by hope. But by faith.

If love is the greatest of the theological virtues over and above faith (1 Corinthians 13), and you must show mercy to receive mercy (Matthew 6:14-15; James 2:13), and faith alone without good works cannot save you (James 2:24), and only the doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), and we will be judged lost or saved on the basis of what we have done in the body (Matthew 16:27, 25:31ff ; Romans 2:6-10; 1Cor 3:8, 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7-8; Revelations 2:23, 20:12-13) where do you get all of this "faith alone" stuff? The NT knows nothing of it. Neither does the OT. I am sorry but your views are not Biblical.

Also, where does the Bible say that we are to be "imputed" with the righteousness of Christ? What I see in Romans 4 is that we are to be reckoned as righteous because of our faith in Jesus. (Which faith I assume to be the plenary idea of a "saving faith" which includes assensus, fiducia and caritas.) No where does it mention that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to me. Where do you get that from?

Charity is the active virtue which assumes faith and hope as a necessary presupposition and which leads to good works. As St James stated, faith must be completed or formed by Charity before it becomes salvific.

To say that love leads to good works is a denial that love is a good work.

Let us get this straight. CHARITY (Gr. agape; Lt. caritas) is the theological virtue under discussion. Love is an equivocating English word that has no use in this discussion. You used it in two totally different senses in the above sentence and created a false syllogism as a result.

Charity is not an emotion or an action of the body. It is defined by St Thomas Aquinas as a disposition of the will: willing the good of the other for the sake of the other and for the sake of God. It is NOT a "good work." It is a virtue that results in good works.

In like manner, faith (assensus) is not a belief. It is the virtue which results in beliefs.

These are THEOLOGICAL virtues. They are the response in man to the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit's indwelling in us as a result of our justification. They are not "works" of ours but of the Holy Spirit working within us "to will and to work" (Phil 2:13). This is why the Catholic Church teaches that "good works" are meritorius before God BECAUSE WE DON'T DO THEM OF OURSELVES, GOD DOES THEM THROUGH US. That is why St Paul says:

St Augustine says, when God rewards our good works with merit, He crowns his own gifts. Also St Paul says, "It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me." (Galatians 2:20) Acts motivated by the virtue of Charity are supernatural acts not of us of God through us.

And yet, the entirety of the Law (works of Torah) is summed up with the command to love:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galatians 5:14).

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40).

James speaks of faith being completed by works. You have said above that faith must be completed in Love. And since the Scriptures teach that Love is the one word summary of the "works of Torah," you seem to be saying that "justification is by works of the Torah (e.g., charity/love ) and not by faith alone." Perhaps I misread you.

Your reasoning is very poor. You equivocate all over the place. You need to define the meaning of terms before you start reasoning with them.

No where in Scripture does it say that "agape" equals "nomos." Rather it says that "agape" applied to other people fulfills the REQUIREMENTS of "nomos." It is an equivalent alternative. That was St Paul's argument in Romans against the Judaizers. The Gentiles didn't have to obey the specific regulations of Torah because "willing the good of the other for the sake of the other" achieved the same end. Since that was what the Torah was trying to accomplish anyway, Torah as the Law of Moses was rendered irrelevent. The new "law of love" could replace it.

It is works of the "law of love" that St James speaks about, as opposed to the "works of Torah" in St Paul.

St Paul NEVER says that a man is justified apart from keeping the moral law. In fact in Galatians 5 (especially verses 19-21) he makes it clear that if one continues to sin, faith cannot save him.

In other words, Paul does not contradict James. And James does not contradict Paul. In fact, they both seem to be saying the same thing. We just don't agree on what that thing is.

YES! … "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." But Roman Catholicism seems to take it the opposite of what was intended, that is, Roman Catholicism seems to teach that "If you keep my commandments, you will love me."

I don't know where you got that line of drivel, but it ain't Catholic! It sounds like a convenient protestant lie told by another of your ministers.

No one can do anything without willing it. It is in the act of willing that we love persons. Love is not an emotion! As a consequence, love of God must precede the keeping commandments of God as the motive force behind them, otherwise they are not willed for God's sake and become a denial of the love of God.

I am reminded of a story told about one of the Symbionese Liberation Army women who kidnapped Patty Hearst. This woman wanted to atone for the racial injustice perpetrated against black men in America, so she freely fornicated with them and would steal high cost items for them. This is a case of putting the love of God last instead of first as Jesus told us to do. As such, her desire to do a mitzvah for black people was perverted into just another group of serious sins. The way to hell is paved with good intentions. The way to heaven is paved with GODLY intentions.

The real question is, "How can man, who is a natural born enemy of God (Romans 5:10), ever love Him?" To Love Christ is a commandment, too. In other words, if we obey His command, we will obey His commands. But how can we obey His commands if we are born unable to obey even His first command? Certainly not by trying hard to obey His command. The answer is that only God can cause someone to love Him.

Which as I explained above is Catholic doctrine. Where did you get the benighted notion that we believed the natural man could please God? Oh, I know. Another one of your ministers told you that didn't he?

Justification (He that believeth on Me) is by faith alone, and those who are so justified, do "the works that I do" and "greater works than these shall he do." Justification by faith alone is not a denial that works follow on the faith. To refute justification by faith alone, it will not suffice merely to demonstrate that believers do good works. We all agree on that.

One more time. The scriptures nowhere say that a man is justified, considered righteous, or made righteous by a prot systematic concept of faith (ie assensus, fiducia, and notitia) in isolation from godly works. In a whole bunch of places which I listed above (Matthew 16:27, 25:31ff ; Romans 2:6-10; 1Cor 3:8, 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:7-8; Revelations 2:23, 20:12-13) the NT says that we will be judged righteous BEFORE GOD on the basis of what we have done in this life. Nowhere in the NT does it say that we will be JUDGED by what Jesus did. Jesus' sacrifice atones for sin, but that is not enough. When we stand before the throne of grace we MUST hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master." (Matt 25:21) This is the message of St James which you keep misrepresenting.

It is a gnostic corruption caused in part by the deficiencies in nominalist philosophy that led the Reformers to claim otherwise. In the wholistic anthropology of the OT, you cannot be considered righteous unless you are righteous!

When St Paul says:

The word "dikaioo" takes on a transformationist character so that the one justified is "made righteous." (See Joseph Fitzmeyer's Roman's Commentary in the Anchor Bible series, or his article on Pauline theology in "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.") Otherwise, it would directly contradict Pro 17:5.

It all comes by the initiative of God, not by the autonomous willing of men. Good works are therefore an integral part of the life of a justified person. These works proceed from faith and hope. They are not strictly necessary since charity (ie a willingness to do good) alone would suffice but in the concrete circumstances which we Christians find ourselves we cannot avoid either the opportunity to do good or the obligation to do so. The deliberate failure to carry out the revealed will of God in our lives is what sin is. Our deliberate attempt to fulfill His will may not be perfect, but that is the advantage of being a son or daughter of God by baptism into Christ. Good works are finger paintings for God the Father. They may not be masterpieces, but they are given in love to the best of our ability. As a result, they are more precious than gold.

As far as I can see, the Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century were the false prophets that Jesus warned against.

Since you place within this category all those who interpret Matthew 16:16-10 the way that Augustine did, you might want to reconsider this statement.

St Augustine was a Catholic bishop who submitted to papal authority. (See the book "St Peter and the Keys".) With regard to Matt 16, he interpreted it the same way we Catholics do with regard to the question of Papal authority. It is you and your kind who need to reconsider yourselves.

These reprobates came preaching another gospel than the one we had received and than were shocked when the Church condemned them. How rightly they deserved to be declared "anathema" as St Paul recommended.

Thanks, Art. It is actually refreshing to meet a Roman Catholic who appreciates the anathemas the way Trent meant them. Often times, I meet Roman Catholics who don't think the anathemas of Trent were serious. You seem to think they were. I think so, too.

Please note, Tim, that the anathemas of Trent only apply to the 16th Century contemporaries of the Council who defied the authority of the Church. They do not apply to you or to others like yourself who were born into the material heresy. But indeed I think the anathemas were rightly declared against evil men and many of the alleged "reformers".