See, here's what I'm talking about. When James says "Faith alone is dead", you respond with, which is not at all what the text is implying, but is simply a half-truth of the issue:
Nope. James was characterizing what was true of one type of faith versus another from a humans perspective.
James is in fact saying that Faith alone does not save. That's not just human perspective. I've made whole threads about this, where the "Faith alone" side got smacked into orbit.
but they are very good indicators of truth.
The Catholics who believe in Faith Alone simply don't understand their own church's doctrine. Do you want to count numbers from historical methods? They FAR outnumber the Post-Lutherans if we go back to the 2nd century. Numbers are not always good indicators of truth. Why don't you tell me the EXACT way, in your own logic, of how we determine when numbers indicate truth? If not, drop that one.
Okay, here's the issue. I can say "Even Paul says you must not sin or you won't enter the Kingdom", and you 'll respond with "The saved will behave righteously".
I can say "The text says this" and you can read anything you want into the text and make up your interpretation whether the text says it explicitly or not. I can say "The text says that", and you can make up a radical interpretation, insist I'm the one twisting the text and so on. That's one of the major problems with scriptural debate. Anyone can make any interpretation they want, based on any peramaters and goal posts and presumptions. This is why we NEED a moderator in such a debate, someone who can acknowledge what is a solid interpretation and what is a modern age convenience doctrine which skirts around what the text actually says. Otherwise we are left simply saying "nuh uh" to each other, regardless of who has the closer idea.
It's not about me not being able to hold a debate. It's about YOU not being able to hold a debate while dismissing and saying "Nuh uh" to any plain text interpretation that involves going by what the text says. You can read anything you want into it, claim I'm wrong, and that you're right. It just doesn't work like that.
I can say show a verse that says "You shall only eat Vanilla ice cream" and I'll say "The text says you shall only eat vanilla ice cream", and you might say "It's just saying that vanilla ice cream tastes good". Really, every one of your theological objections has no textual basis, and is a post-Lutheran interpretation that in no way goes by the plain reading.
I've offered already to make an on-topic thread on the subject, you're the one who keeps making an issue of it here. I've dealt with people who refuse to put up an argument because they say I'll just brush it off, but here we have a reverse. I already have seen that you have your own way of dismissing and denying.
Now perhaps you would like a MODERATED debate instead, so that when I call you out as not going by what the text says and putting your own spin into it, or denying and dismissing scholarly objections to a point of view, I can demonstrate to you that I'm not just speaking nonsense. And you can do the same for me.
And here's another thing. Let's look at your criteria:
1. The exact standard of righteousness that must be achieved. Some ambiguous reference to the unknown criteria of what exceeds a random Pharisee or scribe is not it.
There is no exact standard! The exact standard is that you must be more righteous than the Pharisees. It's something you just have to have blind faith in and aim to win the race. The standard is to "Win the race". What do you think winning the race means? Do you think its some contest that everyone gets a trophy for, just for competing? If it was as simple as having Christ's righteousness imputed on you for merely believing in him, Paul would have been best to shut up and leave it at that and not warn those who already believed about the penalties of bad behavior. This is an example of you demanding to set the goal posts when it's much more complicated than that.
2. You must explain how a finite input justifies an infinite gain.
Also, we're not even talking about infinite gain. We're talking about "Age-long" gain. Another example of where you are demanding the goalposts to meet your own concept of the criteria in question.
3. Your going to have to provide much better reasons for dismissing Galatians and Paul.
Is there ANY reasoning you will accept to dismiss Paul and the authenticity of Galatians? I can't even get you to accept the kinks with Ephesians.
Maybe I should reverse it on you.
You must:
1. Explain to me why I have to show that there's an EXACT standard other than what Jesus says, and why what Jesus says isn't sufficient, and why one must interpret what Paul says about "Imputed" righteousness in light of EVERYTHING ELSE he says.
2. You must explain why merely believing constitutes infinite gain with no other work involved, in spite of EVERYTHING ELSE Jesus and Paul says.
3. You must explain why Paul SHOULD be accepted as a prophet and why FR Mcguire and the Dutch Radical Critics and the others who agree MUST be dismissed, without resorting to the fallacy of majority.
If you have a problem with that, I suggest you reconsider your own goalpost setting.
So in your case, I will do so under the pretext of a MODERATED one on one, in which we'll pick a moderator we agree is objective. If you object to this, I'll know why.
), it very much is a very welcome relief for those of us who observe it. 