Was James confused?

[RichardBurger]

Was James confused? Or was he still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included the Law?

James 2:20-21
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
(NKJ)

No, he was not!!!!!!!  ---- He was accounted righteous before God several years earlier, BEFORE the birth of Isaac, and before he had done anything to "prove" his faith in God. 

Gen 15:4-6
4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
(NKJ)

Not only that, but God accounted him righteous solely for his faith in His Promises, and not by anything that He did.  Paul accurately reports this.  It seems that James, in order to mix salvation by works and faith, did not consider this fact in the scriptures.  It was not until Genesis 22, many years after Isaac was born, when Abraham was well over 100 years old, that he agreed to offer Isaac.
 
James writes:
22  You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23  And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Neither of those last two statements jives with the Genesis 15:4-6 account. Nowhere does the OT Scripture say that Abraham "was called God's friend" BECAUSE he was willing to offer up his son Isaac. In Isaiah 41:8 it states that God called Abraham His friend but nowhere in the context of the chapter does He say it was because Abraham offered up his son Isaac.

What James wrote, as shown above, is a direct contradiction of the Gospel that Paul taught and the account given in Gen 15:4-6. Abraham was righteous before God solely because he believed God’s promises.

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. Here are some facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.

1. The word “Law†is found in 18 places
2. The word “grace†is found in 2 places
3. The word “Christ†is found in 2 places
4. The word “Justified†is found in 2 place with the words “by works†after them
5. The words “by faith†is found 1 time (justified by works and not by faith only)

6. The word “cross†is not found
7. The word “reconciled†is not found
8. The word “sanctified†is not found
9. The word “saved†is not found
10. The words “in Christ†are not found

Written by: Richard Burger, 2003. Revised 2009

 

[francisdesales]

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. Here are some facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.

Try to remember that Paul is of no higher authority than James in the Scriptures. Paul would agree (as he wrote in the beginning of his first letter to the Corinthians) that there is no place for such divisions within the church that you appear to be fomenting. ALL Scriptures - Paul writes - is inspired by God. NONE of it is "superior" or a "canon within a canon" to any other Scriptures.

Thus, the manner by which Paul teaches the Apostolic preaching may differ on emphasis and focus, but it is no more important, nor is it primary, to any other NT writing. The Gospel of Grace can be found within the pages of James just as the teachings of morality and ethics can be found in Paul.

In other words, they BOTH teach the Gospel in different ways and those who cannot reconcile that forget the Author who inspired these writings is not One of confusion. It is the human reader with the problem. Your argument is the same as Martin Luther and has just as much merit.

Regards

 

[RichardBurger]

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. Here are some facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.

Try to remember that Paul is of no higher authority than James in the Scriptures. Paul would agree (as he wrote in the beginning of his first letter to the Corinthians) that there is no place for such divisions within the church that you appear to be fomenting. ALL Scriptures - Paul writes - is inspired by God. NONE of it is "superior" or a "canon within a canon" to any other Scriptures.

Thus, the manner by which Paul teaches the Apostolic preaching may differ on emphasis and focus, but it is no more important, nor is it primary, to any other NT writing. The Gospel of Grace can be found within the pages of James just as the teachings of morality and ethics can be found in Paul.

In other words, they BOTH teach the Gospel in different ways and those who cannot reconcile that forget the Author who inspired these writings is not One of confusion. It is the human reader with the problem. Your argument is the same as Martin Luther and has just as much merit.

Regards

You have used the space to proclaim that James and Paul were equal. However you did not touch on the facts that were in the post. How about it, was Abraham justified by the work of offering up his son or was he justified by his believing God many years before his son, Issac, was born? The book of Gen. does not support what James wrote and you are simple ignoring what is in my post.

 

[samuel]

James has been called a book of straw, and hay (works) by some for years. But if you use some understanding instead of criticism you will find James, and Paul on the same page; just writing to a different audience.

As the KJV says God tempted Abraham. Now the word tempted in 1611, was different from our understanding today. As the scriptures also say God does not tempt any man, but in 1611 it was used in place of tested. Abraham's faith was tested, and tried by the refiners fire, and found to be pure Gold. Just as a gun barrel is proven to find its strength, so was Abraham's faith found to be strong. By his obedience, not by works; but James' audience would have better understood it this way.

Abraham's faith was the same as yours, and mine. A gift of Grace from God, on this basis was Abraham considered righteous. Not by works.

 

[Pard]

We are not justified in God by works, but by faith and obedience, just as Samuel said.

If what you say is true, and James' writings are not of gospel grace, would the Lord Almighty have let such false words coexist besides His Word for 2000 years? No.

 

[francisdesales]

You have used the space to proclaim that James and Paul were equal.

They were both apostles of Christ, so they claimed, inspired to write what God desired them to reveal to mankind. Do you agree with that or not?

However you did not touch on the facts that were in the post. How about it, was Abraham justified by the work of offering up his son or was he justified by his believing God many years before his son, Issac, was born?

Both. The issue is not James, the issue is you do not accept that justification is an ongoing process that happens many times in one's life. Thus, you present a false dichotomy that does not exist.

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. Heb 11:8

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son]. Heb 11:17

Note what Paul says in Romans:

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom 4:3

Thus, if in Heb 11:8, we have a man 'counted unto him for righteousness', we have the same thing for Heb 11:17. The act mentioned in Heb 11:17 must ALSO "count unto him for righteousness".

To see James emphasis, look and compare Heb 11:17 to James 2:21,23.

Hebrews gives the events the same force, by faith. James calls this (and the event of Rahab, also discussed in Hebrews 11) "by works". BOTH are needed, as faith alone cannot save. James CLEARLY PRESUMES that faith is present ("even the devil has faith" means the audience had it, as well, otherwise, the comparison is absolutely meaningless...). And Paul is clearly describing an action, not a mere mental movement to God.

Paul is not saying "by faith ALONE, Abraham...etc".

Paul and James discuss the opposite sides of the same coin.

Thus, you propose this confusion between inerrant Scriptures, rather than your understanding and the Bible itself...

The book of Gen. does not support what James wrote and you are simple ignoring what is in my post.

I read the post, Richard. Genesis supports James because they both come from Who again? The issue is your misunderstanding of what justification is, not a confusion of James!!!

Or shall we say Paul was confused and JAMES wrote the "real" Gospel??? James was the "brother" of the Lord, was he not? Paul never knew Jesus' teachings directly, as the other apostles. Why do you choose Paul over James - if you think one is not Sacred Scriptures and are not reconciliable???

Thanks,

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

We are not justified in God by works, but by faith and obedience, just as Samuel said.

If what you say is true, and James' writings are not of gospel grace, would the Lord Almighty have let such false words coexist besides His Word for 2000 years? No.

Obedience is a work, so says Jesus.

That the early Church was able to reconcile the two writings does not mean future Christians who misunderstand the Scriptures (such as Luther) will now change the canon to suit THEIR understanding.

Regards

 

[samuel]

Obedience is a work, so says Jesus.

Granted there are works of "faith to obedience", and there are "works for the sake of works". Some have a hard time separating the two, and have a fear of anything that states the word works in the context. James was not however speaking of works for works sake, but works from obedience through faith.

There is a true spiritual faith (a gift of Grace), and a false faith of mans reasoning (schoolhouse faith). James is speaking of the faith, that produces works (fruits) of the Spirit. So Paul and James are on the same page, just a with a different choice of words.

 

[watchman F]

You have used the space to proclaim that James and Paul were equal. However you did not touch on the facts that were in the post. How about it, was Abraham justified by the work of offering up his son or was he justified by his believing God many years before his son, Issac, was born? The book of Gen. does not support what James wrote and you are simple ignoring what is in my post.

Yes Abraham was justified by the work of offering his son to God, for in this work he showed his faith was true and pure.

 

[francisdesales]

Obedience is a work, so says Jesus.

Granted there are works of "faith to obedience", and there are "works for the sake of works". Some have a hard time separating the two, and have a fear of anything that states the word works in the context. James was not however speaking of works for works sake, but works from obedience through faith.

I agree. Clearly, James, inspired by God, is not giving his audience permission to go back to "works of the Law". We must ALSO remember that Christ did not come to destroy the Law, the fulfillment of which James calls "the Royal Law" (of Love).

There is a true spiritual faith (a gift of Grace), and a false faith of mans reasoning (schoolhouse faith). James is speaking of the faith, that produces works (fruits) of the Spirit. So Paul and James are on the same page, just a with a different choice of words.

I agree that James and Paul are generally meaning the same thing with different approaches. Nothing matters but FAITH WORKING IN LOVE, Paul tells the Galatians, of all people...

Apparently, James is providing a corrective for Christians who read Paul and misinterpreted "Freedom from the Law" with "I can do whatever I want, all I need is faith in God". Thus, he calls them "foolish" or "vain".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

You have used the space to proclaim that James and Paul were equal. However you did not touch on the facts that were in the post. How about it, was Abraham justified by the work of offering up his son or was he justified by his believing God many years before his son, Issac, was born? The book of Gen. does not support what James wrote and you are simple ignoring what is in my post.

Yes Abraham was justified by the work of offering his son to God, for in this work he showed his faith was true and pure.

You got it, that's what James is saying... Got to have both love and faith.

If one goes to the story in Genesis, interestingly, God says "now I know..."

Faith must manifest itself as an act of love, otherwise, it is not saving faith.

Regards

 

[RichardBurger]

Rubbish!!!!

What James wrote was addressed to the Jews who were under the law. What Paul wrote was to the Gentiles.

Those that say they were both saying the same thing are flat out wrong.

Acts 21 supports that James and Paul were teaching two different people and the message was not the same.

I would like to make the point that the believing Jews in Act 21 were only angry at Paul for what he was teaching. If James and the Elders were teaching the same thing then the believing Jews would have been angry at them too. That is common sense. But common sense is hard to find now a days.

 

[watchman F]

Rubbish!!!!

What James wrote was addressed to the Jews who were under the law. What Paul wrote was to the Gentiles.

Those that say they were both saying the same thing are flat out wrong.

Acts 21 supports that James and Paul were teaching two different people and the message was not the same.

I would like to make the point that the believing Jews in Act 21 were only angry at Paul for what he was teaching. If James and the Elders were teaching the same thing then the believing Jews would have been angry at them too. That is common sense. But common sense is hard to find now a days.

I think it was pard who said it best. If it wasn't God's word, God word not allowed it to be in the Bible these 2,000 years.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Was James confused? Or was he still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included the Law?

A faith without any works is a dead faith. There is no mention in scriptures that the commandment laws of God have been done away with. I should mention that some scriptures are not correctly translated. So before you disagree, make sure of the translation.

 

[dadof10]

Was James confused? Or was he still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included the Law?

James 2:20-21
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
(NKJ)

No, he was not!!!!!!!  ---- He was accounted righteous before God several years earlier, BEFORE the birth of Isaac, and before he had done anything to "prove" his faith in God. 

Gen 15:4-6
4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
(NKJ)

Not only that, but God accounted him righteous solely for his faith in His Promises, and not by anything that He did.  Paul accurately reports this.  It seems that James, in order to mix salvation by works and faith, did not consider this fact in the scriptures.  It was not until Genesis 22, many years after Isaac was born, when Abraham was well over 100 years old, that he agreed to offer Isaac.
 
James writes:
22  You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23  And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Neither of those last two statements jives with the Genesis 15:4-6 account. Nowhere does the OT Scripture say that Abraham "was called God's friend" BECAUSE he was willing to offer up his son Isaac. In Isaiah 41:8 it states that God called Abraham His friend but nowhere in the context of the chapter does He say it was because Abraham offered up his son Isaac.

What James wrote, as shown above, is a direct contradiction of the Gospel that Paul taught and the account given in Gen 15:4-6. Abraham was righteous before God solely because he believed God’s promises.

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. Here are some facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.

1. The word “Law†is found in 18 places
2. The word “grace†is found in 2 places
3. The word “Christ†is found in 2 places
4. The word “Justified†is found in 2 place with the words “by works†after them
5. The words “by faith†is found 1 time (justified by works and not by faith only)

6. The word “cross†is not found
7. The word “reconciled†is not found
8. The word “sanctified†is not found
9. The word “saved†is not found
10. The words “in Christ†are not found

Written by: Richard Burger, 2003. Revised 2009

Your misunderstanding is with the word 'works". If you will really look at the context of Paul's letters, EVERY time he writes against "works" or contrasts faith with works, he means works of the Law, not acts of charity and obedience. By the same token, when James writes of "works", he means acts of obedience and charity.

Look at the context. You won't find one instance in Paul's writings where "works" is not alluding to works of the Law, which put God in OBLIGATION to man. This is Paul's point. This was quite a controversy in the early Church, look at Acts 15. There is no contradiction here.

 

[francisdesales]

Rubbish!!!!

What James wrote was addressed to the Jews who were under the law. What Paul wrote was to the Gentiles.

They both were writing to Christians. Some had a Jewish background and others didn't. But the Gospel is the same - we are not under the Law of Moses anymore.

I suppose the question asked is "IS James part of Sacred Scriptures or not"?

If not, why should one believe that PAUL is part of Sacred Scriptures - and James (being the BROTHER OF CHRIST) IS NOT?! Perhaps the first Christians got it wrong and should have left out Paul???

Regards

 

[RichardBurger]

Rubbish!!!!

What James wrote was addressed to the Jews who were under the law. What Paul wrote was to the Gentiles.

They both were writing to Christians. Some had a Jewish background and others didn't. But the Gospel is the same - we are not under the Law of Moses anymore.

I suppose the question asked is "IS James part of Sacred Scriptures or not"?

If not, why should one believe that PAUL is part of Sacred Scriptures - and James (being the BROTHER OF CHRIST) IS NOT?! Perhaps the first Christians got it wrong and should have left out Paul???

Regards

Your saying both were written to Christians in the grace church is your idea. The first verse in James tells us who it was written to. If The book had been addressed to the grace church too God would have said so. The book of James was CLEARLY written to the Jews who were under the law.

The religious leaders in Israel were telling the Jews things that God did not say and when they were carried off into slavery God had those religious leaders killed because of it. --- You all are telling others that God had the book of James written to all and God did not say that in the first verse of the book of James.

 

[mondar]

James has been called a book of straw, and hay (works) by some for years. But if you use some understanding instead of criticism you will find James, and Paul on the same page; just writing to a different audience.

I do not disagree with the fact that James and Paul taught the same view on justification by faith alone. However, I would like to clarify the historical statement that James is an epistle of "straw." It was Martin Luther that made that statement. He did not make that statement because he disagreed with James 2, but because James was not written by an Apostle, or an Apostolic amanuensis. Church history has Mark writing for Peter, Luke consulted Paul, Matthew, John and Paul and Peter were apostles. Luther questioned James and Jude because he questioned their apostolic connections.

As the KJV says God tempted Abraham. Now the word tempted in 1611, was different from our understanding today. As the scriptures also say God does not tempt any man, but in 1611 it was used in place of tested. Abraham's faith was tested, and tried by the refiners fire, and found to be pure Gold. Just as a gun barrel is proven to find its strength, so was Abraham's faith found to be strong. By his obedience, not by works; but James' audience would have better understood it this way.

Abraham's faith was the same as yours, and mine. A gift of Grace from God, on this basis was Abraham considered righteous. Not by works.

I suspect that we look at the text of James 2 in very different ways. Abraham's claim to have faith was a just claim because he could "show me your faith" (vs 18). The point of James 2 is that a mere claim to faith is insufficient, it is the works, and the works alone that justify a claim to faith.

This is not to be confused with the doctrine of justification by faith alone preached by Paul. In Romans and Galatians Paul denies that works have any place in justification. However, Paul is talking about our salvation, and our faith in the crosswork of Christ as the basis of justification. I am guessing we agree on that point. Where we might disagree is that James is talking about works justifying the claim "I have faith."

 

[mondar]

Rubbish!!!!

What James wrote was addressed to the Jews who were under the law. What Paul wrote was to the Gentiles.

I am going to have to disagree here. James was writing to Jews, but your implication is that James 2 means the Jews can be justified by the works of the Law. This of course is obviously not true. Do you even need me to quote scripture?

James would have been writing to NT Jews, but even in the OT, the Law never saved.

Those that say they were both saying the same thing are flat out wrong.

Agreed.


Acts 21 supports that James and Paul were teaching two different people and the message was not the same.

I would like to make the point that the believing Jews in Act 21 were only angry at Paul for what he was teaching. If James and the Elders were teaching the same thing then the believing Jews would have been angry at them too. That is common sense. But common sense is hard to find now a days.[/quote]
The elders in Jerusalem were not the elders of the local Church.

 

[samuel]

James is not talking about doing works to prove faith, but that the proof of good works accompany true faith.

His statement is more in a form of a question, than an answer. He is addressing those who say they have faith, but produce no evidence of faith (good works/fruits of the spirit). Just as we would question a fruit tree, that produced no fruit. If it says it is a fruit tree, but produces no fruit, how then can I know it is really a fruit tree - except I find fruit on it.

No more can a Christian be a Christian, without good works accompanying their faith.