A Person is Justified by Works and not by Faith Alone

[FreeGrace]

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

The works are not the justification but rather the evidence.

Exactly! And lack of works demonstrates a hypocrite.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

For the points I made. There is justification in the eyes of men, as well as justification in the eyes of God. And I proved that James' point was being justified in the eyes of others. Believers who demonstrate their faith before others are hypocritical and are NOT justified in their eyes. Which is why they are called hypocrites by others.

Where else is the word justified used in regards to others and not God?

Here is the Scripture:
Gen 22:11-12
11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven andsaid, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 12He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing tohim; for now I know that you fear God, since you have notwithheld your son, your only son, from Me.” NASB

The one making the statement is from an angel of the Lord, not the Lord Himself.

So Abraham would not withhold his son from an angel?

"for now I know that you fear God, since you have notwithheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (NASB)

This fails to notice that often the "angel of the Lord" speaks as God, and could perhaps be the pre-incarnate Jesus.

Now the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, Judges 2:1 (ESV)

Did the angel of the Lord bring the Israelites out of Egypt, or bring them to the land the he swore to their fathers, or commit to never breaking a Covenant with them?

I think you need to reevaluate this assessment.

It would seem that now the angel knew something that he didn't know before.

Now that we know that this is stated from God's perspective, it changes things a bit eh?

If you want to take James 2 reference about Abraham to be about God finally learning something, means you don't actually believe that God isn't omniscient; that He doesn't really know everything. Yet, Scripture says that He does.

God has his mind changed by Moses as well.

I don't pretend to have God completely figured out, so I just try to understand God within a particular context and how he is choosing to relate himself to the person. I think he does this for a reason.

I believe that every act of belief towards God is counted as righteousness. Please don't apply this verse to salvation, since Abraham was saved way before he took Issac to the mountain for sacrifice.

Where does it talk about Abraham being saved? It just says he was justified? Are these terms totally synonymous to you?

Only until you can demonstrate that my explanation of the passage is in error can we actually discuss v.14. It seems you've made the mistake of assuming that James was thinking of "saving faith" just because the words touch in the sentence.

I pointed out my disagreement over the text, in it's mention of Abraham's example of obedience which was to be justified before the Lord.

He is addressing the question of whether or not a faith that has no works can save. So I don't see why he wasn't thinking of that issue.

The first thing that must be determined is what kind of saving James had in mind. It wasn't salvific. That is clearly seen throughout his epistle by his term for his audience and what he says to them. In fact, a review of commentaries all agree that he wrote to Hebrew believers. Guess what: they are already saved.

Perhaps you can provide an explanation for what saved means in this context? He is using the same language employed by Paul, "saved" and "justified," why would we not think he meant the same things?

Also, the logic does not follow that because he is addressing Hebrew Believers, that he would not need to discuss the issue of salvation. Perhaps they have been misunderstanding Paul's argument about justification by faith apart from works of the law, yet misunderstanding that this wasn't a reference to works in general. That is faith working through love.

This is a red herring. The only point of James here is that he notes that demons believe in monotheism. Which isn't saving faith, btw. Please note that. In fact, it's apples and oranges to even try to make any kind of statement about what demons believe and how that may affect them. Of course they believe that God is One, and that Jesus is the Christ, the Holy One of God. Why? They were there, in heaven, before any of them rebelled along with satan. So of course they would know that.

Christ didn't die for angels. So there is no issue at all about what saving faith is in regard to demons.

If you'll notice, I detail out the distinction between the way demons believe and the way those in Christ believe.

Doesn't matter. Paul's point was that works don't save.

Was that Paul's point, can you go to Romans 3 and demonstrate how that was his point when he stated:

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3:28 (ESV)

I also fail to recognize how this doesn't matter, as if the issue was already settled without further examination.

Only faith saves. James' point was that believers need to demonstrate their faith to others so they won't be hypocrites.

Where is hypocrisy mentioned in this text?

So, what James was trying to 'save' his audience from was being a hypocrite. And being called one.

Can that person save them from being a hypocrite? Didn't read that anywhere in the text. You're reading in way too much to support your presupposed interpretation to assert your doctrine.

I've actually never even heard of this interpretation, but it definitely has no basis in any commentary I have ever seen. Nor can it be seen from the English or Greek, nor is there any other place in Scripture where "saved" is obviously referring to salvation from hypocrisy.

iow, a believer who doesn't demonstrate his faith before others will be seen as and called a hypocrite. Those believers who follow James' point will be saved from being a hypocrite.

Until my point can be shown from the text to be in error, it stands. And all the verses I provided that supports my point.

You have a unique interpretation, that has no historical basis, or actual mention in the text (hypocrisy is not mentioned anywhere). Yet the burden of proof is on me to disprove your hypothesis?

 

[FreeGrace]

Where else is the word justified used in regards to others and not God?

I had hoped you would have read the verses, all of which were about the believer's behavior in the eyes of others.

The believer who demonstrates their faith before others isn't seen as a hypocrite. The believer who doesn't do that is seen as a hypocrite. And, therefore, is not justified in the eyes of others.

So Abraham would not withhold his son from an angel?
"for now I know that you fear God, since you have notwithheld your son, your only son, from Me.” (NASB)

So, why do you think God didn't already know? That would indicate that you don't believe that God is omniscient.

I think you need to reevaluate this assessment.

You haven't done anything to demonstrate that my analysis of James 2:14-26 is in error.

Now that we know that this is stated from God's perspective, it changes things a bit eh?

No,
No, I reject any suggestion that God didn't already know everything.

Where does it talk about Abraham being saved?

From Gen 15:2

It just says he was justified? Are these terms totally synonymous to you?

Nope.

I pointed out my disagreement over the text, in it's mention of Abraham's example of obedience which was to be justified before the Lord.

A disagreement doesn't equal a refutation. You haven't shown my explanation to be in error.

He is addressing the question of whether or not a faith that has no works can save. So I don't see why he wasn't thinking of that issue.

I've addressed what 2:14 was about. And you haven't shown otherwise. And my explanation of 2:14 fits the rest of the text as well.

Perhaps you can provide an explanation for what saved means in this context? He is using the same language employed by Paul, "saved" and "justified," why would we not think he meant the same things?

I did. Please read my posts. And because that post is close to this one, you won't have to dig very far. Probably on the same page.

Also, the logic does not follow that because he is addressing Hebrew Believers, that he would not need to discuss the issue of salvation.

Uh, yeah, it does. otoh, it is totally illogical to tell believers how they can be saved.

If you'll notice, I detail out the distinction between the way demons believe and the way those in Christ believe.

And I addressed that as well.

I said this:
"Paul's point was that works don't save."

Was that Paul's point, can you go to Romans 3 and demonstrate how that was his point when he stated:
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3:28 (ESV)

I demonstrate that Paul's point was that works don't save by the phrase "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law".

I also fail to recognize how this doesn't matter, as if the issue was already settled without further examination.

Yes, I understand that you fail to recognize this.

Where is hypocrisy mentioned in this text?[/QUTOE]
I see. We need the actual word in order to accept the principle. Just read James 2:15 and 16 and tell me that such behavior isn't being a hypocrite. James gave us a clear example of hypocrisy. He didn't have to label it as such. It is patently obvious.

Can that person save them from being a hypocrite? Didn't read that anywhere in the text.

That's what 2.14 is speaking about.

You're reading in way too much to support your presupposed interpretation to assert your doctrine.

You've done nothing to demonstrate or prove my explanation is in error. All you've given is your disagreement with it.

I've actually never even heard of this interpretation, but it definitely has no basis in any commentary I have ever seen. Nor can it be seen from the English or Greek, nor is there any other place in Scripture where "saved" is obviously referring to salvation from hypocrisy.

The word "save" is used in a variety of ways throughout Scripture. The basic meaning of it is "to be delivered from" or "rescued from". Luke used the word in reference to deliverance or rescue from physical death in Acts 27:20 and 31.

David used the word many times in reference from his being rescued or delivered from his enemies. I believe it's very naive to assume all references to 'save' means eternal salvation.

You have a unique interpretation, that has no historical basis, or actual mention in the text (hypocrisy is not mentioned anywhere). Yet the burden of proof is on me to disprove your hypothesis?

Yes, correct. Irregardless of the fact that no commentaries that you have read understand this. That hardly matters.

What matters is that I've provided a solid explanation of what James was talking about. v.15 and 16 are clearly about hypocrisy. Or not demonstrating one's faith before others.

Let me ask you this: in that example of v.15 and 16, how do you think the cold and hungry would view the idiot who told them "be warmed and filled" yet didn't meet their needs? Huh?

Would he have been justified in their eyes if they knew him to be a Christian?

 

[Deborah13]

My understanding is.....
Abraham = type of God the Father
Issac = type of God the Son
By Abraham's faith in being willingly to give his son he showed that he was worthy to be the father of many nations here on earth just as God the Father is the Father of many nations.

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

So the works of God are first obedience in repentance in believing that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God, who came down from heaven, and is the bread of life. Therefore, we believe everything that the Word of God says about Him. It says He is our Redeemer and it says He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, our Lord.
2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

James never said anything different than Paul said, it may sound different to our NT ears but to the people who had been honoring Moses for so long they would understand by giving the same message but from their view point. James begins by speaking about what he calls the law of liberty and the royal law.
Jas 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Paul
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[JLB]

James was speaking from the perspective of others, not the perspective of God. When one misunderstands this, they conclude that one must include works in order to be saved. Which contradicts many other Scriptures.

James was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these words for us to take heed to.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17

James teaches us from the perspective of God Himself, not from the perspective of man.


Jesus taught us the same thing, from the mount of Olives.

I will bold and underline the works that the Sheep did, as well as the works the goats did not have.

31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Matthew 25:31-36

Pay close attention to what Jesus says to these sheep on His right hand -

Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food;

Come inherit the kingdom BECAUSE I was hungry and you gave Me food.

Jesus says the reason these are welcome into God's kingdom is BECAUSE they demonstrated love by the action of obedience.

The scripture teaches us - for God so loved the world HE GAVE...

God demonstrated His Love by giving... and giving us what we so desperately needed.

This sheep on His right hand also demonstrated their love by giving... giving food, giving water, giving clothing, giving encouragement, giving comfort.


The goats on the other hand, were cursed by Jesus Christ and sentenced to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil, becuase they did not demonstrate any action of love.

41 Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' Matthew 25:41-43


'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food;


Depart from Me... BECAUSE I was hungry and you gave Me no food.


The reason these were banished to hell, was BECAUSE they has no works of obedience to demonstrate the love of God.


A faith that does not have works is a faith that can not save.


JLB

 

[JLB]

You haven't done anything to demonstrate that my analysis of James 2:14-26 is in error.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16

James 2 demonstrates and teaches us the way of righteousness, and corrects those who don't understand that a faith that does not work is a faith that can not save.


JLB

 

[JohnD]

James was comparing an evident faith with a faith that has no evidence.

Cheech and Chong did a segment wherein a beggar was cornered by a "Jesus Freak" and he hemmed and hawed his way through what he considered an intolerable evangelistic witness. After the Christian left, the beggar posed as a "father" raising fund for a mission (his new beggar pitch) which worked well for him.

Paul and James agree that works cannot save you. But salvation cannot help but do works / produce fruit.
James was merely sting that he would be the Jesus Freak in the segment above as opposed to the one with faith only like the beggar above.

BTW I was only trying to post the link here...

 

[FreeGrace]

James was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these words for us to take heed to.

Yes.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17

James teaches us from the perspective of God Himself, not from the perspective of man.

Your opinion has not been supported by Scripture. All you've done is express what you think. I gave verses that directly demonstrate that our behavior is seen by others. If you disagree, the burden is on you to address verse that I gave outside of James and explain how the verse doesn't include the perspective of others.

The most direct one that supports my explanation of James 2:14-26 is 2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

This verse directly speaks to both God's perspective of our behavior, as well as men.

A faith that does not have works is a faith that can not save.JLB

As always, one must determine what it is one is being saved from. You have not demonstrated from the passage that James had hell in mind.

otoh, the next 2 verses give an example of gross hypocrisy. If you as a believer do not want to be seen and called a hypocrite, then demonstrate your faith before others, NOT like the idiot in v.15 and 16.

 

[FreeGrace]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,2 Timothy 3:16

Very true.

James 2 demonstrates and teaches us the way of righteousness, and corrects those who don't understand that a faith that does not work is a faith that can not save.JLB

Yep. Those believers who don't demonstrate their faith before others will NOT BE SAVED from the charge of hypocrisy.

 

[FreeGrace]

James was comparing an evident faith with a faith that has no evidence.

OK.

Cheech and Chong did a segment wherein a beggar was cornered by a "Jesus Freak" and he hemmed and hawed his way through what he considered an intolerable evangelistic witness. After the Christian left, the beggar posed as a "father" raising fund for a mission (his new beggar pitch) which worked well for him.

I have no idea how this has relevance to the OP.

Paul and James agree that works cannot save you.

They were making totally different points. Paul WAS speakimng about salvific faith in order to get to heaven. James was speaking of demonstrating one's faith before others in order to be justified in their eyes.

But salvation cannot help but do works / produce fruit.

This is not supported by Scripture. We are commanded to produce fruit. It it were automatic, there would be no need for any command.

Kinda like commanding a person to breathe. No need to do that.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I had hoped you would have read the verses, all of which were about the believer's behavior in the eyes of others.

You have yet to substantiate within the particular context of James 2 how hypocrisy is central to the issue being discussed. It is never mentioned at all. Nor is this concept of "salvation from hypocrisy." That person is saved from hypocrisy by works and not just by faith alone.

Doesn't that just seem a bit off to you?

So, why do you think God didn't already know? That would indicate that you don't believe that God is omniscient.

I said that is how God chose to relate to Abraham, as if he didn't know or wanted to see. I see you didn't address my refutation of your objection regarding the "angel of the Lord."

You haven't done anything to demonstrate that my analysis of James 2:14-26 is in error.

This is your opinion, which we are discussing the merits of.

From Gen 15:2

Where is salvation mentioned in this verse?

But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Genesis 15:2 (ESV)

Nope.

Can you elaborate on what you see is the difference?

A disagreement doesn't equal a refutation. You haven't shown my explanation to be in error.

I'm discussing my differences, which are not arbitrary but have their basis in the text, which we are discussing. You likely won't be persuaded, but I likely won't be either unless something really compelling is presented. I only hope that our discussion is beneficial to others who are reading.

I've addressed what 2:14 was about. And you haven't shown otherwise. And my explanation of 2:14 fits the rest of the text as well.

You have not substantiated the idea that he is talking about salvation from hypocrisy, an invented concept no where referenced in Scripture.

Uh, yeah, it does. otoh, it is totally illogical to tell believers how they can be saved.

You realize that salvation is discussed in almost every Epistle, which are all written to the churches.

Here is an example.

"To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints" Romans 1:7 (ESV)

Clearly to believers, yet he talks about salvation.

"For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” Romans 10:10-11 (ESV)

And I addressed that as well.

I said this:
"Paul's point was that works don't save."

You're committing the fallacy of begging the question. You have assumed what "works" means, and thus assert your conclusion on that basis.

Please substantiate that Paul and James are talking about the same works.

 

[JLB]

Your opinion has not been supported by Scripture. All you've done is express what you think. I gave verses that directly demonstrate that our behavior is seen by others. If you disagree, the burden is on you to address verse that I gave outside of James and explain how the verse doesn't include the perspective of others.

The most direct one that supports my explanation of James 2:14-26 is 2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

This verse directly speaks to both God's perspective of our behavior, as well as men.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16

James 2 demonstrates and teaches us the way of righteousness, and corrects those who don't understand that a faith that does not work is a faith that can not save.

James and Jesus both teach us that faith without works is dead.

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? James 2:14-16


Here is exactly what Jesus said about those who do not give the things which are needed for the body -

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; Matthew 25:41


[Let's not get personal.]


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

You have yet to substantiate within the particular context of James 2 how hypocrisy is central to the issue being discussed.

It is substantiated by the fact that the example of gross hypocrisy immediately follows v.14, which is the first verse of the segment.

It is never mentioned at all.

Seems you're stuck on the fact that James didn't use the word 'hypocrisy'. Yet 2:15 and 16 are clearly examples of just that. Unless you think those 2 verses are about something else. Please share.

Nor is this concept of "salvation from hypocrisy." That person is saved from hypocrisy by works and not just by faith alone.

I explained exactly WHY it is just that.

Doesn't that just seem a bit off to you?

What seems a bit off to me is trying to make the claim that faith without works doesn't result in saving faith.

This is your opinion, which we are discussing the merits of.

OK, demonstrate from the text how my opinion is in error, rather than your opinion from the text.

Where is salvation mentioned in this verse?

Oops. I meant Gen 15:6 - Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. NASB

You have not substantiated the idea that he is talking about salvation from hypocrisy, an invented concept no where referenced in Scripture.

The example which FOLLOWS v.14 is the key. How would this example have any link to whether one is saved eternally or not? We all know how much hypocrisy there is within evangelicalism.

You realize that salvation is discussed in almost every Epistle, which are all written to the churches.

I stand by my statement on the word 'save'.

You're committing the fallacy of begging the question. You have assumed what "works" means, and thus assert your conclusion on that basis.

So, which "works" participate in your salvation?

Please substantiate that Paul and James are talking about the same works.

I can't imagine that there would be any substantial difference. Please share what you think the difference is.

 

[FreeGrace]

[Let's not get personal]
[Response to deleted text]

Are you aware of these verses: NASB
Rom 14:13 - Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

James 4:3 - Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it.

You have no idea what I believe or not, nor do you have any idea what I obey or not. Your presumption does not reflect well on you.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It is substantiated by the fact that the example of gross hypocrisy immediately follows v.14, which is the first verse of the segment.

Perhaps we need a closer look at the text again.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17 (ESV)

James begins with the question posed about the effectiveness of faith to save, if it is not accompanied by works. He then draws upon the explanatory power of an analogy of a person who needs food and clothing, and the person simply wishes them well, without giving them the proper food and clothing that they require. He asks what good is that? The answer is clearly, no good at all, and then submits his conclusion that faith by itself is dead, if it does not have works. Let's make some further observations about this text.

1) No where is hypocrisy blatantly discussed.
2) The analogy seems to primarily concerned with the effectiveness of a statement or affirmation, namely likening faith to wishing someone well without action or deed involved.
3) Faith apart from works is mentioned to be dead. A dead faith cannot save, which answer's James' initial question. Can that faith save?

Seems you're stuck on the fact that James didn't use the word 'hypocrisy'. Yet 2:15 and 16 are clearly examples of just that. Unless you think those 2 verses are about something else. Please share.

Please see the above interpretation, that clearly indicates what these verses mean within their context.

Can you derive from the text itself that hypocrisy is the primary concern of James in this text?

What seems a bit off to me is trying to make the claim that faith without works doesn't result in saving faith.

Of course it doesn't, that is the clear teaching of this passage, that just about every Christian tradition embraces some version of. The standard Protestant understanding is that the works merely prove the faith to be true, not that the works are meritorious as well.

Oops. I meant Gen 15:6 - Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. NASB

Still not seeing where salvation is mentioned in this text. Can you elaborate?

The example which FOLLOWS v.14 is the key. How would this example have any link to whether one is saved eternally or not? We all know how much hypocrisy there is within evangelicalism.

James is providing his introduction to the issue of faith and it's relationship to works, not works righteousness or works of the law, but good works done in faith. James poses the question through an example of a person who states that they have faith, but no works, and asks the question of whether or not this person would be saved. There are plenty of other texts about hypocrisy, which specifically focus on this, and perhaps there is an element to hypocrisy in claiming to have faith but not having works, but salvation is clearly being referenced.

I stand by my statement on the word 'save'.

I provided proof, from Romans that it is not illogical to discuss salvation to people who are already saved. Which was your argument.

This is what we call a refutation. You can believe whatever you want, but the reader will not be fooled.

So, which "works" participate in your salvation?

Works performed in faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I can't imagine that there would be any substantial difference. Please share what you think the difference is.

Paul is referring to "works of the law," and let's go to the text to show you what I mean.

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Romans 3:28 (ESV)

Here Paul says that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law, of course it still bears mentioning what justification is, but we can perhaps dig into that can of worms a bit later. However, let's get to the heart of the issue, why is Paul mentioning that a person is "justified" apart from works of the law?

I think his next questions reveal a bit more on the issue.

"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also," Romans 3:29 (ESV)

Huh? Why would Paul ask if God was the God of the Jews only? What do the Jews and Gentiles have to do with justification by faith apart from works of the Law? Paul would say, "EVERYTHING!"

"since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Romans 3:30 (ESV)

Why is he bringing up people who are circumcised, and those who are uncircumcised? It's because of what Paul is really addressing here, and it's central to his primary message throughout his Epistles. Even his Christology is centralized around this issue.

The unity of believers is presently being discussed, namely the Jews and Gentiles, and how a person is no longer considered apart of God's Covenant keeping through Law keeping. One's adherence to the Mosaic Law is not the basis for Covenant participation, being a Jew, or being Circumcised, or obeying the dietary or sacrificial Laws does not make one part of God's people. The Covenant is through the promise, and has always been through the promise which was given to Abraham prior to the giving of the Law. Those who are of faith, and believe as Abraham, and indeed act as Abraham are those who are truly of God's people. They are now not distinguished by keeping the Mosaic Law, but by faith in the Messiah Jesus. God then accomplishes a work by conforming them into the image of his Son, by the Holy Spirit working in them and through them to accomplish the works he predestined them to walk in.

This is the point in Romans and Ephesians 2 and the other salvation texts. We on the other side of the Protestant reformation misread this text by looking at it from a Roman Catholic vs Protestant perspective. Faith vs works. When really it's about Faith vs Works of the Law, which do not include such things as caring for the poor or visiting the sick and those in need.

Paul summarizes this point well in Ephesians 2.

"remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility." Ephesians 2:13-16 (ESV)

The picture is that of a wall, this wall which is the law of commandments, the Mosaic Law created a hostility as it separated the Gentiles from the commonwealth of Israel.. the Covenant promises of God. Jesus took this dividing wall away, having it destroyed in his flesh, literally the cross did away with the Mosaic Law that he might create one new man.. one new people.. in himself. One people, Jews and Gentiles being one, in Jesus the Messiah so that we all might be reconciled to God.

This is Paul's central message, and what he means by works, and what he is really getting after.

 

[FreeGrace]

Perhaps we need a closer look at the text again.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17 (ESV)

James begins with the question posed about the effectiveness of faith to save, if it is not accompanied by works.

Once again, the question is what kind of saving James had in mind. Seems everyone defaults to eternal salvation, yet James uses 'sozo' 5 times in his short epistle, and none of them are about eternal salvation.

He then draws upon the explanatory power of an analogy of a person who needs food and clothing, and the person simply wishes them well, without giving them the proper food and clothing that they require. He asks what good is that? The answer is clearly, no good at all, and then submits his conclusion that faith by itself is dead, if it does not have works. Let's make some further observations about this text.

So you don't think the example of v.15 and 16 is about a gross hypocrite??? Really? What else does this example show us? How not to receive eternal life???

1) No where is hypocrisy blatantly discussed.

Because the example itself is blatant enough.

2) The analogy seems to primarily concerned with the effectiveness of a statement or affirmation, namely likening faith to wishing someone well without action or deed involved.

So you really don't see any hypocrisy here. Wow. It's there, nonetheless.

3) Faith apart from works is mentioned to be dead. A dead faith cannot save, which answer's James' initial question. Can that faith save?

Since you do not see any evidence of hypocrisy in the example provided in v.15 and 16, I guess there's not much hope of understanding the rest of the text. The example was nothing about so-called "affirmation". There was nothing about "effectiveness of a statement" either. It was purely about an idiot who was a huge hypocrite; telling cold and hungry people to be warmed and filled, yet did nothing to that end. That is SCREAMS hypocrisy, whether anyone else sees it or not.

Can you derive from the text itself that hypocrisy is the primary concern of James in this text?

Sure. 2:15,16 does it quite well.

Of course it doesn't, that is the clear teaching of this passage, that just about every Christian tradition embraces some version of. The standard Protestant understanding is that the works merely prove the faith to be true, not that the works are meritorious as well.

Works don't prove anything. They are an evidence of faith. Yet, there are many unbelievers who may live quite similarly to believers. Are they saved because of their works? Of course not.

And 2:18 cinches the point. He sets up a hypothetical situation where "someone" says to you (personally); you (yourself) have faith and I have works. Then this "someone" goes on to challenge you personally: show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

iow, it is NOT possible to demonstrate (show) your faith apart from works. And I've already given many verses that clearly indicate the importance of believers living their lives exemplarly before others. And you've not shown that those verses don't indicate that.

Still not seeing where salvation is mentioned in this text. Can you elaborate?

Gen 15:6 - Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. NASB

We know from Rom 3 & 4 that righteousness comes by faith. It's that simple.

James is providing his introduction to the issue of faith and it's relationship to works, not works righteousness or works of the law, but good works done in faith. James poses the question through an example of a person who states that they have faith, but no works, and asks the question of whether or not this person would be saved.

You've not shown that the example was not about hypocrisy. It is exactly about that.

There are plenty of other texts about hypocrisy, which specifically focus on this, and perhaps there is an element to hypocrisy in claiming to have faith but not having works, but salvation is clearly being referenced.

Think back to the many discussions Jesus had with the Pharisees and leaders of the Law. One of the most used words He said was "you hypocrites". Don't you think His own brother would be quite aware of how often Jesus challenged the Pharisees on their hypocrisy?

The defense that just because James didn't use that particular word is lost on the fact that the example in 2:15,16 is all about hypocrisy. Nothing else. I am truly sorry that you don't see that.

I provided proof, from Romans that it is not illogical to discuss salvation to people who are already saved. Which was your argument.

I think it is illogical to deny that the example of 2:15,16 is about hypocrisy.

Here is the definition from on-line Merriam-Webster:
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

This is what we call a refutation. You can believe whatever you want, but the reader will not be fooled.

No, a refutation is proof of error in a statement of another.

Here is the definition of refute:
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>

Paul is referring to "works of the law," and let's go to the text to show you what I mean.

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Romans 3:28 (ESV)

Here Paul says that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law, of course it still bears mentioning what justification is, but we can perhaps dig into that can of worms a bit later. However, let's get to the heart of the issue, why is Paul mentioning that a person is "justified" apart from works of the law?

I think his next questions reveal a bit more on the issue.

"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also," Romans 3:29 (ESV)

Huh? Why would Paul ask if God was the God of the Jews only? What do the Jews and Gentiles have to do with justification by faith apart from works of the Law? Paul would say, "EVERYTHING!"

"since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Romans 3:30 (ESV)

Why is he bringing up people who are circumcised, and those who are uncircumcised? It's because of what Paul is really addressing here, and it's central to his primary message throughout his Epistles. Even his Christology is centralized around this issue.

This is the point in Romans and Ephesians 2 and the other salvation texts. We on the other side of the Protestant reformation misread this text by looking at it from a Roman Catholic vs Protestant perspective. Faith vs works. When really it's about Faith vs Works of the Law, which do not include such things as caring for the poor or visiting the sick and those in need.

Paul summarizes this point well in Ephesians 2.

This is Paul's central message, and what he means by works, and what he is really getting after.

Interesting but you never clarified any difference between what Paul meant by works and what James meant by works.

And we're discussing what James wrote, not what Paul wrote. So Paul's "central message" doesn't relate to James' central message.

It appears you believe that Paul and James used "works" differently. What are they?

 

[chessman]

James 2:21-24 (ESV)
Looking at the context, we have a rather curious example that doesn't really support the perspective you offered.

How does what I presented not fit the context? The perspective I offered fits perfectly with the examples we see of Abraham and Rahab.
Were it not for us 'seeing' the account(s) of Abraham and Rahab (written in the Texts in their cases), we wouldn't know either of them from Adam. However, God (the Omniscient God, that is) knew their faith prior to their works. The angel of the Lord (whether pre-incarnate Christ or not) spoke a message to Abraham that Abraham needed to hear, not God.

If you don't think God was Knowledgable of Abraham's faith prior to his works with his son (or anything else), and after those works, then prove it. But there's not conflict with what I pointed out and what the text of James says.

Genesis 18:17-19 (LEB) Then Yahweh said, “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am going to do? Abraham will surely become a great and strong nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed on account of him. For I have chosen him, that he will command his children and his household after him that they will keep the way of Yahweh, to do righteousness and justice, so that Yahweh may bring upon Abraham that which he said to him.” ​

James now talks about how our faith produces works, which is also necessary for our justification.

Just as your Title of this OP leaves out James' true/complete meaning, so does your statement above. You could correct it (or your title) by inserting to key meaning (seeing faith through work) back into them:

James now talks about how our faith produces works, which is also necessary for our us to see other's justification faith.

 

[chessman]

Apparently God wanted it demonstrated through his works.

Apparently God knew it would demonstrate Abraham's inner faith to Abraham (and to us).

Apparently, God wanted Abraham to know something (that God knew his inner faith). Thus His messanger was sent to tell Abraham bout that and other future things.

It was then on this basis that God blessed Abraham.

So was Issac a blessing?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Once again, the question is what kind of saving James had in mind. Seems everyone defaults to eternal salvation, yet James uses 'sozo' 5 times in his short epistle, and none of them are about eternal salvation.

No where else is it mentioned in Scripture with faith saving us from anything else. Saving someone from hypocrisy is frankly a rather shallow and silly argument (not making a statement about yourself, just the argument).

You also assume that James doesn't reference saving faith once.

Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. James 1:21 (ESV)

Just going to the first example, we could go to more.. We can see a rather clear example where James said the word implanted by God is able to "save your souls." What else would that be referring to?

So you don't think the example of v.15 and 16 is about a gross hypocrite??? Really? What else does this example show us? How not to receive eternal life???

I think it's clearly about the ineffectiveness of a simple declaration. If a person simply tells a person just wishes them well, but does not act upon helping them, what benefit is that to them?

This fits perfectly with the text, as it says faith that is apart from works is dead. How does that make any sense with this invented and totally unique hypocrisy interpretation.

Because the example itself is blatant enough.

That's like saying, "it is because it is." Not a very compelling argument.

I actually took the text in it's context and broke down my interpretation.

So you really don't see any hypocrisy here. Wow. It's there, nonetheless.

Please read the rest of my post.

Since you do not see any evidence of hypocrisy in the example provided in v.15 and 16, I guess there's not much hope of understanding the rest of the text. The example was nothing about so-called "affirmation". There was nothing about "effectiveness of a statement" either. It was purely about an idiot who was a huge hypocrite; telling cold and hungry people to be warmed and filled, yet did nothing to that end. That is SCREAMS hypocrisy, whether anyone else sees it or not.

That's ironic, since you're literally the first person I have ever seen present this perspective, whether through personal dialogue or reading commentaries. So it doesn't SCREAM hypocrisy to anyone else.

I'm also using my own words "effectiveness of a statement," to explain what the text is conveying. This isn't something I am reading into the text, such as your "saved from hypocrisy," hypothesis. Rather is it drawn directly from the text.

Example #1:
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" James 2:14 (ESV)

Notice the leading question, what good is it? The Greek word ὄφελος, meaning literally what "profit" or "advantage," is it to claim a faith but have no works. He ponders on whether or not that faith can save him. This is directly related to effectiveness, specifically the effectiveness to save him, is that kind of faith any advantage to him?

Example #2:
"Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?" James 2:20 (ESV)

Again, notice that he doesn't saying that "faith apart from works is hypocrisy," rather he references it's utility. How it can be used. The Greek word ἀργό means being idle, or lazy and in this particular context "useless," or basically, "it does nothing." This again is an appeal to it's effectiveness to accomplish saving the person.

Sure. 2:15,16 does it quite well.

Asserting the same thing over again without properly demonstrating your basis for your argument is not going to convince anyone. You can't just appeal to how the text appears to yourself, you have to explain it in an objective fashion.

Right now this just appears to be a convenient explanation for a difficult text that contradicts some desired theological position. Just my opinion though.

Works don't prove anything. They are an evidence of faith. Yet, there are many unbelievers who may live quite similarly to believers. Are they saved because of their works? Of course not.

Is anyone disputing this point, I fail to see the connection.

And 2:18 cinches the point. He sets up a hypothetical situation where "someone" says to you (personally); you (yourself) have faith and I have works. Then this "someone" goes on to challenge you personally: show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Don't know how this proves any point unique to your position. It proves James' point. That one doesn't have faith or works, one cannot be shown faith apart from works, one has to see faith by works.

iow, it is NOT possible to demonstrate (show) your faith apart from works. And I've already given many verses that clearly indicate the importance of believers living their lives exemplarly before others. And you've not shown that those verses don't indicate that.

Where is it being disputed that faith cannot be displayed apart from works?

Gen 15:6 - Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. NASB

We know from Rom 3 & 4 that righteousness comes by faith. It's that simple.

Still not seeing where salvation is discussed here. Perhaps you need to question your assumptions. Always a helpful exercise and will assist you in having more clarity to your arguments.

You've not shown that the example was not about hypocrisy. It is exactly about that.

I only have to demonstrate what it's really about, which I have done in great detail. I don't need to disprove it's not about faith in dinosaurs, because that's irrelevant to his point.

Think back to the many discussions Jesus had with the Pharisees and leaders of the Law. One of the most used words He said was "you hypocrites". Don't you think His own brother would be quite aware of how often Jesus challenged the Pharisees on their hypocrisy?

Yes, Jesus was quite clear when discussing hypocrisy. His brother apparently was not.

The defense that just because James didn't use that particular word is lost on the fact that the example in 2:15,16 is all about hypocrisy. Nothing else. I am truly sorry that you don't see that.

I'm not just saying, "I don't see it," I'm posting the full text in its context and then providing a detailed interpretation with solid observations from the text. You keep assuming that your perspective must be much clearer than mine, yet you are unable to give a detailed explanation and exegesis of the passage.

I think it is illogical to deny that the example of 2:15,16 is about hypocrisy.

Here is the definition from on-line Merriam-Webster:
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I see you've dropped that argument about an author not discussing salvation with believers, by reasserting your point about James 2:15-16 being about hypocrisy.

If this is all you have to add, then I don't think our continued discussion will be that fruitful.

Interesting but you never clarified any difference between what Paul meant by works and what James meant by works.

Actually I did, it's rather odd in my quote that this portion is not contained.. Hmm..

What Paul means:

One's adherence to the Mosaic Law is not the basis for Covenant participation, being a Jew, or being Circumcised, or obeying the dietary or sacrificial Laws does not make one part of God's people.

James means:

God then accomplishes a work by conforming them into the image of his Son, by the Holy Spirit working in them and through them to accomplish the works he predestined them to walk in.

Basically the Spirit wrought works of the believer, that are not done to gain something or belong, nor is it from the Mosaic Law, but rather from faith working through love. That is what I think James means, as we learn about the works God desires from the rest of the New Testament.

"Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." 1 John 3:18 (ESV)

And we're discussing what James wrote, not what Paul wrote. So Paul's "central message" doesn't relate to James' central message.

You keep appealing to what Paul wrote elsewhere as a basis for "James couldn't have meant that," (paraphrase) which I disagree with. Hence, it is necessary to understand Paul to know he is not contradicting James, or vice versa.

It appears you believe that Paul and James used "works" differently. What are they?

Read what I said slowly, and fully please. I was quite clear, and even clarified above.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Apparently God knew it would demonstrate Abraham's inner faith to Abraham (and to us).

Yet he claims, "now I know," which seems to under-gird your premise of it being necessary to demonstrate to us.

Apparently, God wanted Abraham to know something (that God knew his inner faith). Thus His messanger was sent to tell Abraham bout that and other future things.

What do you think he meant when he said, "now I know"?

I don't think it's that simple to theological rationalize every text, and we shouldn't explain away or make God disingenuous be saying, "well of course he's omniscient."

So was Issac a blessing?

I suppose so, as he was allowed to keep Isaac. Of course the true blessing was through Christ.

"and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” Genesis 22:18 (ESV)

Again, we have a citation for his obedience being the cause of the blessing, or reason for God making the blessing on Abraham.