Formal Debate Proposed

The debate is pointless then! Catholics don't say that the works of the law justify anyone.

I am putting my brief explanation of the supposed contradiction between James and Paul in the "Catholic or Protestant ? : Take the Test" thread. </font>[/QUOTE]Just a quick note on your above, Sola:

Did you notice something common in the quotes you provided?

Give up?

It is the word "law," Sola!

Do you suppose Paul had something in mind when he spoke of this.........."law"......something like......the "law" of the old covenant that he was trying to extract new Jewish Christians from?

Now, all you have to do is compare this with the the "works" James is speaking of and cogitate upon whether there is a difference here...

Report back to me when you have the answer...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Putnam, we kinda agree here. In fact, if you go look at the explanation that I gave on the other thread, you'll see that I said Paul was talking about works meant to EARN justification and James about works meant to ACCESS justification.

 

As I say - I think that on the surface everyone will say they agree with every text. It is "the details" were they object.

In the case above - we come to Christ - not baptized, no priest, no works, nothing - we choose Christ and repent - "are we then saved" by "faith alone"?

If the 2nd coming happens at that moment do you really walk right into the Pearly gates - no works, no priest, not even Baptism - just "accepting Christ by faith"?

If our Catholic friends say "absolutely" then in fact you are right - no possibiliyt of a debate.

In Christ,

Bob