Remember, this is about justification. The Reformed position is that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. No one that I have ever heard teaches that we have faith alone and don't have to ever do good works as that would clearly go against James.
Yes. Absolutely, justification ONLY.
Don't know about the Orthodox, but every other denomination I know of believes in justification by faith alone.
No amount of good works gets anyone saved.
The repeated refrain throughout the NT is to simply believe in, to put one's faith in, Jesus or his name, or that we are saved only by grace through faith. Those are all saying the same thing--justification by faith alone.
I agree.
But some take this into sanctification...and I believe this is where the difference lies.
Yes, it tells us to do those things, but even then we cannot do them under our own power, otherwise we could just do them without being justified in the first place. I am not nor have I ever argued against the need to do good works; I have explicitly stated we must.
Then, Free, you and I have no argument.
Here's what I've always stated, simply put:
FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS A DEAD FAITH.
WORKS WITHOUT FAITH ARE DEAD WORKS.
If someone states that we are to do good works, as Jesus and all the writers taught, but then wants to go on and say that we want to do them, or are enabled to do them, then I have to agree totally.
I'm speaking to those that cannot even bring themselves to saying that we are REQUIRED to do good works.
This is simply obedience to what Jesus taught.
Yes, except that there is another word for sanctification that James doesn't use and we shouldn't conflate that with justification. He is clearly speaking of justification, which means that it can only be meaning 2. It's unfortunate that the Catholic Church muddled up something relatively simple and straightforward.
In fact, the position of the CC is muddled.
I like the distinction between JUSTIFICATION and SANCTIFICATION.
The Catholics call it on-going justification...which does muddy up the idea.
I believe James is referring to ON-GOING justification...which we call sanctification.
But the word in all versions (I believe) is left at justification in James 2:24...this is what causes some problem.
Remember, the whole context of that discussion is:
Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
...
Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (ESV)
James 2:22 YOU SEE THAT FAITH WAS ACTIVE ALONG WITH HIS WORKS, AND FAITH WAS COMPLETED BY HIS WORKS. (your verse)
I believe this is an important verse.
Faith is active.
It is COMPLETED by Abraham's works.
IOW,,,,Faith MUST have works in order to be complete.
I suppose James is saying that faith + works is necessary for JUSTIFICATION!
Look at verse 14: CAN THAT FAITH SAVE HIM?
Which faith? Faith without works.
and
verse 17: FAITH, IF IT DOES NOT HAVE WORKS, IS DEAD.
Hermeneutics is not easy and I'm not sure those not scholarly should be discussing such nuances.
James didn't have the modern-day differentiation between JUSTF and SANCTF.
Maybe he means sanctf.
I don't see how he could have meant faith plus works for JUSTF if even the CC does not believe this.
I think I posted something from Trent on here, and I know it just from knowing the doctrine. They also believe in faith alone for INITIAL salvation...which would be justification.
Even James shows us when Abraham was declared righteous, when he believed the promises of God, in Gen. 15:6. So, James cannot be saying that Abraham was declared righteous in Gen. 22, some 20 years later. The only explanation is that James is showing that Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is evidence of the righteousness he already received back in Gen. 15:6--it was his faith working along with his works (vs. 22).
Yes. It's that word EVIDENCE I don't believe is right.
Abraham was declared righteous...immediately upon obeying God.
BUT
He also continued to believe and obey God.
James is saying in James 2:21 that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac.
Did you know that even John Piper is having questions about this whole idea?
It's like I've been saying....justf and sanctf are intertwined and cannot be separated.
Paul makes the case in Rom. 4, much more strongly, that Abraham's righteousness came only through faith by also appealing to Ge. 15:6. His entire point is that it was through faith and not works.
Let's also remember that Paul is speaking about the works of the Law....and not good works/deeds, which is what I'm speaking of.
I do believe Paul is speaking of The Law in Romans 4.
We do not WORK for salvation...it's a free gift.
Must leave.
Till later....
I would have to see context and understand what definitions they are using. We have to understand that salvation is all a work of God from start to finish. Justification is the initial moment of salvation, by grace alone through faith alone; a free gift of God. Sanctification is a little more complex. We are commanded to be holy and do good, but we cannot do anything that makes us more holy apart from the help of the Holy Spirit. If we could, we wouldn't need Jesus at all. So, there is still an element of faith involved. Even then, it isn't only through good works that we are sanctified. It also happens through trials and temptations, in which case there is a significant amount of faith involved.
Both, but works don't save us. If we don't do good works, if we have no desire to do good works, if we have no desire to obey God's commands, then we cannot be saved.
https://hilltopthoughtsvalleystreng...faith-vs-works-the-two-blades-of-my-scissors/
I am not sure. We have to remember that Strong's is based on how the KJV translators translated and used words, so it depends on what "rendered" meant to them at the time. My e-Sword Strong's says:
δικαιόω
dikaioō
dik-ah-yo'-o
From G1342;
to render (that is,
show or
regard as)
just or
innocent: - free, justify (-ier), be righteous.
That really is not different from meaning 2. Not that it matters, but now that I look at it again, the meanings are actually from Thayer's Greek Definitions, not Strong's. Only how the word was translated in the KJV is from Strong's, which is essentially all that Strong's does as a concordance.
Except that the moment of salvation is being declared righteous. Works are evidence that a person has been saved. We are saved, are being saved, and will be saved.
Yes, and that happens at the moment of justification. That is the only way we can be declared righteous--because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us; we have no righteousness in and of ourselves, nor can we earn it.
Heb 12:14
Strive for peace with everyone, and
for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (ESV)
Because holiness really matters. (This gets into the tricky, to me, nuances of sanctification.) If someone doesn't want to be holy, if there is no conviction of sin, for example, then they cannot have the Holy Spirit; they cannot be saved. (This also gets into OSAS, so what more can be said depends on one's position there, but I'm not going to debate OSAS.)
There are just some finer nuances, particularly with sanctification, that can confuse things a bit.
