Image via WikipediaThis seems to be a free-for-all now, so let's go. In my opinion, deeds are a display of true faith. I think the emphasis of this passage you two are going on about is that any faith without deeds is not likely to be a true faith. I don't interpret this to mean that you need to do deeds simply because having faith on it's own is not enough.No fisking - no editing.
James 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
That's what I expect Will means. Frankly, I agree with everything he says - from this verse in isolation, I would never argue that works were necessary for salvation. To my mind there are two apparent senses of "justified". Firstly it might mean that works show that a man is living by faith. Secondly it might mean that a man is made just by faith through works. And there's nothing in the passage to convince me that one of these must be the primary sense. I could try looking at the Greek perhaps, but I think it would probably be a waste of everybody's time.
On the other hand, I do think that Scripture, especially the gospels, cumulatively justify the Catholic position.
Matthew 7:21-27, Matthew 3:3-10, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:14:15, Matthew 10:21-22, Matthew 10:32-33, Matthew 10:37-39.
I had a feeling I'd run out of steam. Nyeh.
Anyway, these all have something to do with accepting the gospel of our Lord and getting off our arses and doing something with it. To me the idea that I have to meet God halfway and not just let him wash over me is actually fairly overwhelming. It's a tendency, a general state of affairs, and I daresay each one of these passages may be read entirely contrary to my own beliefs, but I think that to deny our co-operation in the work of God is to take an agenda to the gospel.
On the plus side for Gavin:
How do you account for the fact that James 2:24 flatly contradicts what you say?
I have to give that up, on reflection. Not that I think it especially impressive that I abandoned a line of argument before Gavin even mentioned it.
On the plus side for me, I'm moving into context now. "Context"'s a big word, and the only sensible answer is to read the Bible to see what it says really. Order your copy today.
Now, having said that, I think there's probably enough going on in James 2 of itself to undermine Gavin's position. I mean, Luther had to abandon the whole of James before he could make his theology work. Apparently he couldn't read it in a harmonious way. But we've got to.
