I registered to the Catholic Answers forum...
- Thread starter Confessor
- Start date
- Status
Berean
Puritanboard Commissioner
Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
And generally implying "I am not going to touch that even with a ten-foot pole!" That is, enjoying the anticipated spectacle to come. In other words, when elephants are dancing it is best to just get out of the way!
AMR
ok, and thank you!And generally implying "I am not going to touch that even with a ten-foot pole!" That is, enjoying the anticipated spectacle to come. In other words, when elephants are dancing it is best to just get out of the way!
AMR
But that only half answers. What spectacle is anticipated?
I'm new here and from the backwoods of Scotland, please bear with me. Did I say something I shouldn't have?
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Hello all,
One of the members on the Catholic Answers forum is still debating me on James 2:24, and he made the following argument:
Basically, he is arguing that Gen. 15:6 refers to a point when Abraham was justified (in the sense that Paul would use the term), and that James 2:24 is using "justified" in the same sense as Abraham was "righteous" in Gen. 15:6. This would imply that the justification spoken of in James 2:24 is in fact a legal standing before God, thus undermining the Protestant position.
This argument seems to have a weakness in it, but I can't put my finger on it. Any assistance?
One of the members on the Catholic Answers forum is still debating me on James 2:24, and he made the following argument:
James 2:23 is quoting Gen 15:6, which is an actual moment of justification-salvation, thus that is the context for v24. It would be equivocation for James to speak of two types of justification in verses 21, 23, 24. This argument is further strengthened by realizing the Greek text has the same root for righteousness and justify (dikaioo and dikaiosune).
Basically, he is arguing that Gen. 15:6 refers to a point when Abraham was justified (in the sense that Paul would use the term), and that James 2:24 is using "justified" in the same sense as Abraham was "righteous" in Gen. 15:6. This would imply that the justification spoken of in James 2:24 is in fact a legal standing before God, thus undermining the Protestant position.
This argument seems to have a weakness in it, but I can't put my finger on it. Any assistance?
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't think it undermines the Protestant position at all. It may undermine the argument that you put forward -- that James is talking about justification before men there, and not God -- but that argument is not necessary for the Protestant view.
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Can you please explain?
If the justification in James 2:24 is the exact same type of justification Paul is using, then sola fide is immediately rejected, no? He has to mean something different to avoid the contradiction.
louis_jp
Puritan Board Freshman
According to Calvin:
It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. [Henry Beveridge, trans., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966 reprint), 2: 115.]
It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. [Henry Beveridge, trans., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966 reprint), 2: 115.]
This is yet another example of what Mr. Flanagan tried to tell you above, and which you counsel you dismissed. The fact is that this is a very common Romanist argument designed to reject justification by faith.
But since you insisted that you are more than able by the grace of God to engage Roman apologists on their own turf, I think it will be helpful for you to work through the answer to this yourself.
Not trying to say, "he told you so," but I do not think you really tried to appreciate what Mr. Flanagan was trying to tell you. Let me put it in this analogy, "Don't go hunting bear without a loaded gun."
Blessings with tenderness to your soul,
DTK
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
Rev. King,
I was asked by Mr. Flanagan to take a break from the Catholic forum (i.e., to stop posting altogether) simply because I asked one question about an explicit verse citation. I responded to him that I did not think it was necessary to go on a hiatus from the forums for that reason. I am familiar for the most part with several Catholic arguments, though obviously this does not imply that I have an exhaustive knowledge of them.
So then I return and ask for assistance with one argument among many that is being argued against me, and you essentially accuse me of arrogant snobbery? Even if I were being cocky and obstinate, how does that possibly justify your refusal to assist me -- and worse, your proclamation that you were refusing to assist me?
When I see you contribute to the thread just for the purpose of saying what you have said, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it when you tell me that you're not trying to tell me "I told you so." That's exactly what it looks like you are doing.
I was asked by Mr. Flanagan to take a break from the Catholic forum (i.e., to stop posting altogether) simply because I asked one question about an explicit verse citation. I responded to him that I did not think it was necessary to go on a hiatus from the forums for that reason. I am familiar for the most part with several Catholic arguments, though obviously this does not imply that I have an exhaustive knowledge of them.
So then I return and ask for assistance with one argument among many that is being argued against me, and you essentially accuse me of arrogant snobbery? Even if I were being cocky and obstinate, how does that possibly justify your refusal to assist me -- and worse, your proclamation that you were refusing to assist me?
When I see you contribute to the thread just for the purpose of saying what you have said, I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it when you tell me that you're not trying to tell me "I told you so." That's exactly what it looks like you are doing.
Ben,
I can't speak for him but I think that Mr. King is trying to help you. Also, remember 1 Timothy 5:1, "Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father." Young guys like us sometimes get carried away when older brethren try to give us good sound advice. Not trying to call you old DTK, I don't know your age but I am guessing you are older than Ben and myself.
I am sorry, but I think you're missing a much bigger point here than me helping you answer a bunch of Roman sophists. What I am obliged to do is to offer you some sound advice, not to officiate or provide you with the necessary weapons to engage whatever dog fight of which you choose to be a part.
I'm sorry that "you don't buy it," because I was offering you some sound advice for free. The point is that you are not ready to engage these Romanists, and that is a far more important lesson for you to learn than it is for me to spoon-feed you the answer. It is wrong to presume upon the grace of God when one does not know what one is doing.
Blessings with tenderness to your soul,
DTK
Confessor
Puritan Board Senior
I understand the need to study Romanist arguments that have historically been used. I have personally written many pages (just for my personal use) in response to several arguments I have seen used against sola Scriptura.
Moreover, I never start arguments about things I don't know. In other words, I am very uncomfortable entering into a debate without a good knowledge of the counterarguments. I understand the principle not to engage with them before knowing about them, not to hunt for a bear without a loaded gun.
But nonetheless I am apparently underprepared in this particular debate on this particular point, and thus I asked for assistance. I did not ask if everyone could tell me everything to say on that forum.
Moreover, I never start arguments about things I don't know. In other words, I am very uncomfortable entering into a debate without a good knowledge of the counterarguments. I understand the principle not to engage with them before knowing about them, not to hunt for a bear without a loaded gun.
But nonetheless I am apparently underprepared in this particular debate on this particular point, and thus I asked for assistance. I did not ask if everyone could tell me everything to say on that forum.
This is the second time they've "stumped" you, and the second time you've asked for assistance after informing us that "I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace."
I don't think you're ready for this, and as a pastor I have seen many young men involved themselves in the very thing you are now engaged, only to find themselves in the end converted to Rome because they found themselves overwhelmed after engaging Rome so confidently.
I am far more concerned for your soul than I am in providing you with answers. Romanists are not as stupid or ignorant as you may have imagined them to be. For every answer you provide, they'll throw 10 more objections at your answer. This is not a game you're playing - those Romanists are not playing games - they are in it for keeps.
Blessings with tenderness to your soul,
DTK
Confessor:
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
The "it" that was imputed refers specifically and only to faith. The verse is referring back to
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Same "it" issue. But notice what James 2:23 says. It says that the statement in Genesis 15:6 was "fulfilled" at some time. When was that?
Not in Genesis 15 when Abraham believed God, but in Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated that belief through an overt act.
We find this confirmed from Genesis 22
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
The "two senses" is consequently reinforced, not undermined, by Genesis. Abraham was justified by faith when he believed, and that faith was confirmed by Abraham's works.
I hope that helps. I'd also encourage you to check out at least the second of the two links I provided above. It deals specifically with the lively faith issue.
-----Added 7/15/2009 at 01:53:38 EST-----
And I stick by what I said before about it being a good idea to spend the present in study rather than battle.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
The "it" that was imputed refers specifically and only to faith. The verse is referring back to
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Same "it" issue. But notice what James 2:23 says. It says that the statement in Genesis 15:6 was "fulfilled" at some time. When was that?
Not in Genesis 15 when Abraham believed God, but in Genesis 22 when Abraham demonstrated that belief through an overt act.
We find this confirmed from Genesis 22
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
The "two senses" is consequently reinforced, not undermined, by Genesis. Abraham was justified by faith when he believed, and that faith was confirmed by Abraham's works.
I hope that helps. I'd also encourage you to check out at least the second of the two links I provided above. It deals specifically with the lively faith issue.
-----Added 7/15/2009 at 01:53:38 EST-----
And I stick by what I said before about it being a good idea to spend the present in study rather than battle.
Moderation
I let it slide for a while, but we don't allow discussions about discussions on other forums for a number of reasons. Particularly, we don't allow blow-by-blow critiques of other online discussions.
I think this thread is helpful in a general sense, and the counsel has been good. But the thread is too intertwined with an off-board discussion to continue.
Closed.
If anybody wants to open a thread on common arguments used by RC apologists, and the responses to those, that is fine--but no links or references to ongoing discussions, please.
I let it slide for a while, but we don't allow discussions about discussions on other forums for a number of reasons. Particularly, we don't allow blow-by-blow critiques of other online discussions.
I think this thread is helpful in a general sense, and the counsel has been good. But the thread is too intertwined with an off-board discussion to continue.
Closed.
If anybody wants to open a thread on common arguments used by RC apologists, and the responses to those, that is fine--but no links or references to ongoing discussions, please.
- Status
Similar threads
