Bible Study Does James 2 Teach Works for Salvation?

[Jethro Bodine]

I could also get into it more but you said you don't like deep theology....

I detest overthought, long, wordy explanations that end up not explaining anything.

I'll go as deep as you want. But I want to do that in short and concise explanations. Supply as much background information as necessary, but the explanation itself should be short and concise. Lengthy discourse does not equate to accurate and correct discourse. Quite the opposite, I think.

 

[Hopeful]

Does a man steal because he's a thief,
Or is he a thief because he steals

Yes.
To both.
Thankfully though, he can be reborn of God's seed and never steal again.

As you know H, I don't carry on for pages and pages like you guys do!
No stamina!

LOL

You know how I feel about this and I'm not going to just repeat.
I DO want to say that my kids listen to me now...but they're mature adults now.
You're very lucky if your kids listened to you their whole lives --- even when you weren't around.

Thankfully, our life in Christ starts as an adult, or at least at the age of reason.

You're very lucky to have had such a perfect life.
I'd envy you, except that's a sin.
And I REALLY don't like to sin.

My "perfect life" started only 16 years ago.
It wasn't so perfect while I served sin.

Till next time...

 

[Hopeful]

...and so your righteous standing with God is complete and perfect from the moment you believe and is not dependent on how righteous you become in response to God's grace.

I wonder why they fight so hard against sinless perfection?
Perhaps their god wasn't perfect?

 

[Hopeful]

I call it demonic believing.
The demons believe Jesus is Lord but they don’t obey Him as their Lord.
They continue to obey Satan.
Believing without obeying is demonic believing.

Doesn't that carry over into the doctrines that accommodate sin?
Plenty of disobedience going on there, even after they say they believe.

That’s why it says believe in your heart and confess with your mouth.
Confessing Jesus as Lord is how we believe and therefore obey the Gospel.

Plenty of "confessors" are disobedient.
Ergo, demonic.
False believers.

That’s why Paul calls it the obedience of faith.
But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:26

I agree with your citing.

James makes it clear that Abraham was justified by works.
Not the works of the law
Not good works
Not works that earn a wage

They were good works, though, and it did earn him the title of righteous.
But I understand he didn't believe for any titles.
He believed because he loved and trusted God.

The work or action that obedience requires; the obedience of faith.
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? James 2:21
The “work” or action that Abraham did was to obey God to offer his son on the altar.
He received faith when he heard God command him to offer his son Isaac on the altar.

"Received" faith?
You aren't a calvinist are you?
Having, on not having faith, belief, is a reaction to some thing either to believe or have faith in.
Got faith the "stop sign" means business?
If you have faith, you stop.

The faith he received from hearing God’s word was “made alive” when he obeyed God to offer his son on the altar.

You are a calvinist!

Otherwise, without the corresponding action of obedience, faith remains dead, (dormant, inactive) and therefore unable to accomplish the divine result of justification.

Agreed.
Without faith, men disobey God.

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26

Yep.
Sinners don't believe, so don't obey.

 

[JLB]

Doesn't that carry over into the doctrines that accommodate sin?
Plenty of disobedience going on there, even after they say they believe.

The scriptures plainly teach us what to do if we sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10

• If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The scriptures also teach us what to do if a brother sins against us.


Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17

Does your god forgive you if you sin?


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wonder why they fight so hard against sinless perfection?

It's not realistic. It defies actual Christian experience. Besides the plain fact it ignores everything the Bible says about starting out as a babe in Christ and growing up into the image and stature of Christ.

Perhaps their god wasn't perfect?

God is perfect. That's why we are given his righteousness. You're still lingering in your Catholic infused grace theology except you just skipped the gradual part. You will be presenting YOUR righteousness on the Day of Judgment deceived into thinking it's perfect, while we will be presenting the perfect righteousness of God on that Day.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? James 2:21

'Justified' has more than one meaning. Of the two meanings of 'justify' listed below which one is James referring to? Which one is Paul referring to in his writings?

jus·ti·fy​

(jŭs′tə-fī′)
tr.v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.
2. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.

justify

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of justify by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

To make the difference and usage of these definitions more clear, in the verse below, is the expert in the law trying to 1) show himself to be right, or 2) make himself to be right?

29But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Luke 10:29

 

[Mungo]

OK M.
I can't ask you to go back through the posts.
The other member and I have been having a lot of back and forth on the Catholic position of Justification.
He brought up infused grace....I never heard of this in Catholic theology, but I know what it is.
I only know about sanctifying grace and actual grace.
I believe IMPUTED grace is the Protestant teaching and they think Catholics believe in INFUSED grace (which I do not know what is meant by them, exactly).

Sanctifying grace and actual grace are two types of grace.
Infused grace is the way God gives us that grace.

Infused Grace from Catholic Answers
Infused grace is a term often used by Catholic theologians to describe in metaphorical terms how God “pours” grace into our souls or, to put it another way, “fills” us with his grace. The word “infused” denotes the idea of something being “poured into” and is seen most commonly in the Latin formula gratia infusia. This language is symbolic, of course, but it is certainly biblical. Some Protestant critics of the Catholic Church criticize the concept of infused grace as being “unbiblical,” but as the following verses show, the concept is completely biblical.
“You are the fairest of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you for ever” (Psalm 45:2).
“For the palace will be forsaken . . . until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest” (Isaiah 32:14-15).

There are more scriptural quotes after that.

 

[Mungo]

Catholic theology fails to recognize the difference between being legally declared righteous and actually being righteous in your behavior. Your legal standing with God is based on the perfect righteousness of Christ and that is the perfect righteousness that you have to have to be saved. That is the righteousness that comes from God is given to a person as a free gift apart from the performance and value of righteous rituals and works. In infused grace theology you use God's grace to do righteous rituals and works and that is the righteousness, the righteousness of your life, that you present to God in order to be saved.

That is incorrect.
Catholic theology recognises three types of righteousness:

Legal Righteousness: Protestants equate this to Justification. It is extrinsic to man and is acquired solely by God’s decree. God declares a man to be righteousness, whether he is truly righteous or not. He “imputes” Christ’s Righteousness to man.

Behavioural Righteousness: Protestants call this Sanctification. This is a growing disposition or inclination to do good. It occurs only after justification.

Ontological Righteousness: This is what Catholics normally mean by “righteousness”. This is intrinsic to man. It is a quality of the soul. It is a transformation, and growth, brought about by God.

The following is from a long article by James Akin:

Protestants will say that in justification one is made legally righteous (i.e., is given legal righteousness by God), but in sanctification one is made behaviourally righteous (i.e., is given behavioural righteousness by God, so that one behaves more righteously than one did before).

The Protestants misunderstanding of the Catholic doctrines of initial justification(/sanctification) and progressive justification(/sanctification) is caused by the assumption that Catholic thought on these issues is dominated by the same legal vs. behavioural understanding of righteousness that Protestant thought is dominated by.

Catholic thought in connection with the terms "justification" and "sanctification" is not dominated by the ideas of legal and behavioural righteousness. Instead, it focuses on a third kind of righteousness which may be called ontological or real righteousness.

Ontological or real righteousness is the quality which adheres to the soul when one does righteous acts. Its opposite, ontological or real unrighteousness, is the quality which adheres to the soul when one does unrighteous acts. Catholics conceive of guilt and innocence as objectively real properties which cling to our souls just like colours cling to the surface of objects. When we sin, we become guilty and our souls grow dark and dirty before God. But when we are justified, God purifies us and our souls become brilliant and clean before him. Guilt and innocence, righteousness and unrighteousness, are therefore conceived of as properties of our souls

 

[GodsGrace]

The things I've been posting are from Luther's experience of receiving the revelation of the righteousness that comes from God and by which a man lives. Him being a Catholic monk, he knew that the theology of the Catholic church contrasted sharply with what God showed him in the scriptures about the righteousness that comes from God that was not dependent on your works. Let's see if they maintain that stark contrast between historical Catholic teaching and Luther's revelation. I predict they won't and will get rather 'Protestant' in their response.

Sure.
The above was 500 years ago!
The CC was selling indulgences back then.
This was Wrong ant the CC knows this.
Denominations are allowed to change and get better.

The Nazarene church taught perfection when I was attending, many years ago. Like what Hopeful believes. Seems Wesley thought this was possible. They have since changed this position, but it's still considered a holiness church.

Let's leave the 1500s behind and get with the program!!

 

[GodsGrace]

Sanctifying grace and actual grace are two types of grace.
Infused grace is the way God gives us that grace.

Infused Grace from Catholic Answers
Infused grace is a term often used by Catholic theologians to describe in metaphorical terms how God “pours” grace into our souls or, to put it another way, “fills” us with his grace. The word “infused” denotes the idea of something being “poured into” and is seen most commonly in the Latin formula gratia infusia. This language is symbolic, of course, but it is certainly biblical. Some Protestant critics of the Catholic Church criticize the concept of infused grace as being “unbiblical,” but as the following verses show, the concept is completely biblical.
“You are the fairest of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you for ever” (Psalm 45:2).
“For the palace will be forsaken . . . until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest” (Isaiah 32:14-15).

There are more scriptural quotes after that.

Thanks Mungo.

I'm tagging in Jethro Bodine .
I actually explained this the same way but some of the wording might be different. I also posted Akins, on YouTube, he explained it well - of course.

I do wish we could understand each other better.
I will say this...for the benefit of Jethro...

I have personally heard Protestant pastors criticize the CC and this creates dislike in those listening. This really should stop. I mean, it's the way they do it more than what they say.

I have never heard a Catholic priest criticize Protestantism except in theological discussions as to differences, but never with the general laity.

 

[GodsGrace]

I detest overthought, long, wordy explanations that end up not explaining anything.

I'll go as deep as you want. But I want to do that in short and concise explanations. Supply as much background information as necessary, but the explanation itself should be short and concise. Lengthy discourse does not equate to accurate and correct discourse. Quite the opposite, I think.

I agree, actually.
I tagged you into an answer to me by Mungo .
We've actually discussed this. You and I.

It would be interesting to know if it sounds the same to you as what I've been stating, or if it sounds like a different concept.

 

[Mungo]

Sure.
The above was 500 years ago!
The CC was selling indulgences back then.
This was Wrong ant the CC knows this.

Not quite fair that about selling indulgences.
Just for the record - from a Catholic Answers article on myths about indulgences.
Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."
(My emboldening)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Catholic theology recognises three types of righteousness:

Legal Righteousness: Protestants equate this to Justification. It is extrinsic to man and is acquired solely by God’s decree. God declares a man to be righteousness, whether he is truly righteous or not. He “imputes” Christ’s Righteousness to man.

Catholics did not recognize legal righteousness or else Luther's revelation would not have been a new revelation.

I had the feeling that the Catholic answer to what I'm setting forth here would suddenly become 'Protestant':

Let's see if they maintain that stark contrast between historical Catholic teaching and Luther's revelation. I predict they won't and will get rather 'Protestant' in their response.

 

[JLB]

Plenty of "confessors" are disobedient.
Ergo, demonic.
False believers.

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. Luke 15:4-7

• Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’

Was this sheep who became lost one of His sheep of was this sheep never saved to begin with; being a demonic sheep.






JLB

 

[JLB]

To make the difference and usage of these definitions more clear, in the verse below, is the expert in the law trying to 1) show himself to be right, or 2) make himself to be right?

29But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Luke 10:29

Strong’s 1344

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

I don’t claim to know what the expert in the law was thinking or what his motive was, but it is evident he wished himself to be considered righteous; right with God.

I know that we may “think” we are just (righteous; ie right with God) but God knows for sure, and will challenge us to show us our true condition.

We can never hope to leave off the foundational meaning of the word just, which is righteous, right with God, no matter what dictionary definitions may describe.


IOW, the question we must ask ourselves is:

• Would Abraham be righteous, right with God, if he disobeyed Him?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

• Would Abraham be “shown” to be righteous if he disobeyed God?

I believe we all can answer no to both questions.





JLB

 

[Mungo]

Catholics did not recognize legal righteousness or else Luther's revelation would not have been a new revelation.

I had the feeling that the Catholic answer to what I'm setting forth here would suddenly become 'Protestant':

I think there may be a different understanding of "legal" righteousness between Catholics and Protestants.

As I understand it Protestants indulge in a legal fiction. God says we are righteous when we are not.

For Catholics God says we are righteous because we are righteous - because has made us righteous.

In the quote from James Akin I gave above, he continuies
Catholics have no trouble saying that a person is legally righteous before God when they are justified. If God constitutes a person in righteousness Furthermore, Catholics don't need to have any problem with saying that our righteousness is brought about by a decree of God. The Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that when we are justified God declares us righteous and his declaration bring about what it says. He declares us righteous, and so our guilt is taken away and our righteousness is restored.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

Yes. He was justified by works.

Does that mean he was made righteous by works or shown to be righteous by works?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think there may be a different understanding of "legal" righteousness between Catholics and Protestants.

As I understand it Protestants indulge in a legal fiction. God says we are righteous when we are not.

For Catholics God says we are righteous because we are righteous - because has made us righteous.

In the quote from James Akin I gave above, he continuies
Catholics have no trouble saying that a person is legally righteous before God when they are justified. If God constitutes a person in righteousness Furthermore, Catholics don't need to have any problem with saying that our righteousness is brought about by a decree of God. The Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that when we are justified God declares us righteous and his declaration bring about what it says. He declares us righteous, and so our guilt is taken away and our righteousness is restored.

What is it about this that Luther resisted?

I suspect nothing. Because apparently the Catholic church did not teach, or at least practice, in Luther's day the Biblical truth about the righteousness that comes from God, and that the righteous live by faith. Or else he would have had no basis for an argument. But as it is we know he did.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Not quite fair that about selling indulgences.
Just for the record - from a Catholic Answers article on myths about indulgences.
Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."
(My emboldening)

If there was any truth to this there would have been no grounds for Luther's condemnation of indulgences in the Catholic church.

Rewriting history is nothing more than lying.