dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
This is a discussion of James 2:14-25. I will give a brief exegesis of the verses and I look forward to many comments.
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James (RSV) 2)
You will immediately notice that what James is talking about is FAITH. Not a lack of faith, not a "said faith", in which the hypothetical "man" merely says he has faith but really doesn't. "Can his faith save him?" is the question, not "Can the man merely SAYING he has faith, save him?"
James is talking about FAITH. He goes on with an example of how having faith without works doesn't "profit".
If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James (RSV) 2)
Again, "faith". Not a man saying he has faith, but really not having it. What can this mean, but what the words actually say, that "FAITH, if it has no works, is dead"? Twisting the words with an adjective to mean "a person who merely SAYS he has faith, but really doesn't" is damaging the plain words of Scripture.
But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." (James (RSV) 2)
This verse ALWAYS gets glossed over by the "faith alone" crowd, yet is important to show the context of what he is actually arguing. Using an antonym is a good teaching tool.
Notice this is the OPPOSITE of what was argued in verses 14-17, which presented the scenario that "I have faith, you have works". James asks what profit is there if a man has faith and no works, verse 15 argues that the OTHER EXTREME IS ALSO MISGUIDED.
In verse 14; a man says he has faith and has no works. In verse 18; a "someone" says he has works, but has no faith. If you think that James is talking about a "said faith" in verse 14, then it stands to reason he is talking about "said works" in verse 18. Does this really make sense?
Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. (James (RSV) 2)
Faith AND works, not faith alone (14-17), not works alone (v. 18), but faith and works together. This is what "profits".
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder. (James (RSV) 2)
Even demons have rudimentary faith, yet it can't save them. This is an extreme example to prove his point, that faith without works, even though it's still faith, does not profit. As he goes on...
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? (James (RSV) 2)
Now an example...
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; (James (RSV) 2)
So, after reading the above, I have a question. Was Abraham "justified by works"? It's a simple yes or no question. Let's read it again:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
Yes or no. No twisting of the words of Scripture to suit a "faith alone" heresy. I believe the plain words of Scripture that say: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works..." How about you?
Faith is active along WITH his works and faith completed BY his works. So, according to James, "completed faith" justifies, incomplete faith, even though it's still faith, does not. As in the example in verses 15-16, if you refuse to show charity to others, even though you have faith, it does not profit, does NOT JUSTIFY. If the "man" in verse 14 refuses to act charitably to his "ill-clad" neighbor, will he still be justified, even though he has faith? The obvious answer is NO.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James (RSV) 2)
"YOU SEE..." What was James getting at with the example of Abraham? "That a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".
Another question: Is man justified by faith alone or by works? Reading the plain words of Scripture, the answer is obvious to anyone over the age of seven.
And James is not done...
And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? (James (RSV) 2)
"AND IN THE SAME WAY..." The same way as Abraham, by faith and works.
Another question. How was Rahab the harlot justified? Another no-brainer.
And finally, the conclusion...
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James (RSV) 2)
Again, not "said faith", not "a faith that claims to be real, but isn't". FAITH, if it has no works, does NOT justify. Pretty simple and straight forward.
I didn't go into too much detail on purpose. I hope for many differing views, and a lively debate.
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James (RSV) 2)
You will immediately notice that what James is talking about is FAITH. Not a lack of faith, not a "said faith", in which the hypothetical "man" merely says he has faith but really doesn't. "Can his faith save him?" is the question, not "Can the man merely SAYING he has faith, save him?"
James is talking about FAITH. He goes on with an example of how having faith without works doesn't "profit".
If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James (RSV) 2)
Again, "faith". Not a man saying he has faith, but really not having it. What can this mean, but what the words actually say, that "FAITH, if it has no works, is dead"? Twisting the words with an adjective to mean "a person who merely SAYS he has faith, but really doesn't" is damaging the plain words of Scripture.
But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." (James (RSV) 2)
This verse ALWAYS gets glossed over by the "faith alone" crowd, yet is important to show the context of what he is actually arguing. Using an antonym is a good teaching tool.
Notice this is the OPPOSITE of what was argued in verses 14-17, which presented the scenario that "I have faith, you have works". James asks what profit is there if a man has faith and no works, verse 15 argues that the OTHER EXTREME IS ALSO MISGUIDED.
In verse 14; a man says he has faith and has no works. In verse 18; a "someone" says he has works, but has no faith. If you think that James is talking about a "said faith" in verse 14, then it stands to reason he is talking about "said works" in verse 18. Does this really make sense?
Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. (James (RSV) 2)
Faith AND works, not faith alone (14-17), not works alone (v. 18), but faith and works together. This is what "profits".
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder. (James (RSV) 2)
Even demons have rudimentary faith, yet it can't save them. This is an extreme example to prove his point, that faith without works, even though it's still faith, does not profit. As he goes on...
Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? (James (RSV) 2)
Now an example...
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; (James (RSV) 2)
So, after reading the above, I have a question. Was Abraham "justified by works"? It's a simple yes or no question. Let's read it again:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
Yes or no. No twisting of the words of Scripture to suit a "faith alone" heresy. I believe the plain words of Scripture that say: "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works..." How about you?
Faith is active along WITH his works and faith completed BY his works. So, according to James, "completed faith" justifies, incomplete faith, even though it's still faith, does not. As in the example in verses 15-16, if you refuse to show charity to others, even though you have faith, it does not profit, does NOT JUSTIFY. If the "man" in verse 14 refuses to act charitably to his "ill-clad" neighbor, will he still be justified, even though he has faith? The obvious answer is NO.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James (RSV) 2)
"YOU SEE..." What was James getting at with the example of Abraham? "That a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".
Another question: Is man justified by faith alone or by works? Reading the plain words of Scripture, the answer is obvious to anyone over the age of seven.
And James is not done...
And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? (James (RSV) 2)
"AND IN THE SAME WAY..." The same way as Abraham, by faith and works.
Another question. How was Rahab the harlot justified? Another no-brainer.
And finally, the conclusion...
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James (RSV) 2)
Again, not "said faith", not "a faith that claims to be real, but isn't". FAITH, if it has no works, does NOT justify. Pretty simple and straight forward.
I didn't go into too much detail on purpose. I hope for many differing views, and a lively debate.