I’ve edited the dialogue (only my comments) with ‘How2BeChristian’ on Romans 4. He sent me his video, and I reciprocated with mine. Here’s our exchange over it.

TheSire:

Though Durbin seems to touch on points I’ve raised, he doesn’t give them the same emphasis. While Romans 3 delves into works of the law, Romans 4 appears to address a broader spectrum of works.

Additionally, the significance of Abraham’s pre-Law existence remains unexplored in understanding the meaning of works in chapter 4. This aspect is crucial in comprehending Paul’s connection to the broader principle of how justification works throughout human existence post the fall.

Moreover, the argument seems to rest on the fallacy of assuming that the absence of a specific term in the text dismisses its conceptual presence. For instance, when someone insists, ‘You need to worship the true God!’, even if the term ‘worship’ isn’t explicit, the intention is apparent.

The video builds heavily on this oversight and other misrepresentations. For instance, your argument on Durbin’s stance on justification overlooks his ethical framework. Durbin situates the law within an ethical context, constituting God’s will for humans. While this may not align with the Catholic view, it’s essential to acknowledge his perspective on ethics, as his arguments are rooted in this understanding.

How2beChristian (How): “Who claimed that faith is a work? We never did.”

TheSire: From 10:50 onwards, I would just say faith and believing are synonymous. So, you’re saying believing is a work. That’s just equivalent to saying faith is a work.

How: “Just because you’re saying they’re synonymous, that doesn’t mean they are. We’ll continue to recognize them as the unique words that they are.”

TheSire: Ignoring the noun vs. verb distinction. To have faith is just to be believing. Hence, it would be saying to have faith is to have been working.

How: “We’re not talking about Clark Kent (noun) and Superman (noun). We’re talking about believing (verb) and faith (noun). Two completely different words.”

TheSire: This is still consistent with the idea that we can use two different terms to refer to the same thing. Do you know of some rule that makes that impossible for verbs and nouns? Especially in a context where the author switches back and forth between the terms as interchangeable.

TheSire (Continued): “Consider how verbs and nouns, while distinct in form, often denote the same underlying essence or action. For instance, ‘run’ (verb) signifies swift foot movement, while ‘running’ (noun) describes this rapid action. Similarly, ‘sing’ (verb) conveys the production of musical sounds, and ‘singing’ (noun) represents this musical act.

This showcases how verbs and their corresponding nouns portray identical actions or meanings in varied linguistic forms. Applying this principle to ‘believing’ (verb) and ‘faith’ (noun), we find a parallel correlation. Much like ‘running’ and ‘run,’ or ‘singing’ and ‘sing,’ the interchangeability of ‘believing’ and ‘faith’ underscores the notion that different linguistic terms can encapsulate the same essential meaning or action.”