The answer is an obvious "no".
I agree and say the obvious answer to James’ question ( Can that faith save him?) is no.
Ok. You said you wanted to "start here". Will you be continuing?
In fact the structure of the Greek grammar being in the form of a negative statement, I’m told, requires the answer to the question to be no. Also James gives the answer to this question in verses 17 and 26. Which leads me to my point to answer the assertion that you made that I have to “choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fideâ€.
It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide
I believe in both sola-fide and OSAS because that’s what the texts actually says, versus your misrepresentation of what it says.
Actually, the words are "can faith save him?", there is no "that" or "type" of faith.
1. The Biblical evidence from the Greek manuscripts of verse 14 is against your dogmatic, incorrect statement here. But it certainly explains why we understand James 2 to teach two totally different things. That’s my answer to your assertion that OSAS and sola-fide are not compatible. OSAS is compatible with sola-fide via sola-scripture. It’s just not compatible with sola-daddyo.
I have explained my thoughts on this topic from the very beginning. Whether verse 14 says "faith" or "this faith" or "that faith" or "said faith" or "whatever faith" has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the OP. Outside of my last post to you I have not mentioned James 2:14 once. It neither bolsters nor hurts my contention, which is why I only commented on it in passing.
2. I’m just reading what’s there and understanding what James is saying versus what you incorrectly are saying that he has said. You have changed what James says in verse 14 (and most likely many other places as well) by stating there is no definite article ἡ that ties this “Faith†to that which he just described as a “said faithâ€.
When did I say there is no "definite article"? There is no consensus on what the "article" means within the word "pistis" in v. 14. You agree with Wallace on the subject. Fine, but there others, like Hodges, who aren't convinced that it refers to the previous substantive ("said faith") because the article also appears in verse 22, which can't possibly refer to a "said" faith.
"You see that
faith was active along with his works, and
faith was completed by works,..."
There are other places in Scripture where "pistis" with the same article is used and it doesn't refer to a "previous substantive", so it's logical to translate the word as simply "faith".
I can't help but notice that you "misrepresented" my view. Didn't you give me a ration for doing that to you? Weren't you quite upset and even quoted the TOS (2.5, if I remember right). Hummm...It's a good thing I have thick skin...
3. The Biblical evidence from James 14 manuscripts clearly has a grammatical article with pistis (faith). That’s why EVERY modern translation includes it (see list below).
4. The Biblical evidence from James’ later verses in Chapter 2 is against your statement here.a. So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:17 ESV)
b. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:26 ESV)
5. I have no incentive to remove the definite article in this verse from any outside pressure whether that threat being burned alive or just simply social ostracizing from friends/family.
I have no incentive either. As I said, it was only in passing. It is off topic.
6. It’s rather pointless to discuss (debate) Scripture with someone that feels like it’s acceptable to just remove words (or add them as they see fit).
Now I'm not just removing articles, I'm removing whole words? This is an overreaction, don't you think?
I’ve answered your assertion as to why/how I can view OSAS as being compatible with sola-fide.
You may THINK you have but you haven't answered me in relation to the word "justification" in James 2:21 and 25.
Sola-fide is about putting our full faith in God for the remission of our sins period. There is no qualification to that faith.
Really? I thought the faith had to be "true" faith or "saving" faith for it to save. Isn't that a "qualification"?
It’s faith to leads to salvation, then comes the works to prove it to the humans viewing our works around us looking at our actions.
Do you mean "showing" true faith?
The thief on the cross could not even move his hands and feet to do any “worksâ€, yet his belief in Jesus as God’s son saved him.
The thief was an extreme example, he COULDN'T do anything else.
7. As James is pointing out in verse 23 “and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23-26 ESV). That’s sola-fide and OSAS in one verse.
No, it's not.
8. And Paul, for example, agrees with James and his method of proof (tying sola-fide to O.T Scripture). I find zero incompatibility with OSAS and sola-fide in James (verses 2:21 and 25, included) or the rest of Scripture.
Really? Could you please define the word "justification" in these two verses so we can move on with the OP?
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nationsâ€â€”in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. (Romans 4:13-17 ESV)
9. It seems odd that any Christian would have the incentive to remove the definite article ἡ within the this text, thus removing any faith of any “type†toward our salvation. (see the original Greek text and EVERY modern translation except the 1611 and New King James translations) . Without the qualification of this type of faith in the question of verse 14 (“that faith†or “His faithâ€) and assuming therefore James means any/all types of faith, then that would have James saying no faith of any “type†can save you because of the grammar of the text being negative. Thus, salvation becomes not “faith plus works†but it’s ALL works. No faith of any type is required. Which doesn’t make sense even within a faith plus works doctrinal view of salvation. If that were the case, then there’s no need for a “saviorâ€. Jesus cannot be the “redeemerâ€. We would be fully redeeming ourselves, via our works totally apart from any faith. On that view, we can and do “save†ourselves wholly apart from any faith whatsoever. No savior required. He’s not Lord, we are? Might as well be atheist or Buddhist.
You are completely overreacting. Because there is a negative connotation to James rhetorical statement, doesn't mean that IF we translate the word as simply "faith", we "would have James saying no faith of any “type†can save you..." We would have James saying that generic "faith" can't save, which is what he goes on to argue.It has to be faith expressing itself through love.
10. But the fact remains, that there is ἡ (in the Greek) prior to pistis (faith) in verse 14 that every modern translation translates as either “that†or “his†as these experts all agree that James is qualifying a “type†of faith to his readers. The literal translation (Young’s) even has it that way.
James 2:14 (ESV, ASV, NASB, YLT) Can that faith save him?
James 2:14 (HCSB, RSV) Can his faith save him?
James 2:14 Amplified Bible (AMP) Can [such] faith save [his soul].
Yes, the King James translators choose: Can faith save him? I have no idea why nor do I care, frankly.
So, you only care when translators AGREE with you? It seems like you would at least be a little curious.
But the Greek has this article [ἡ translated That or His] in its manuscripts. You are simply flat out wrong when you say otherwise.
And of course the reason this is important toward understanding what James is saying (besides the obviousness of correctly translating the Greek) is that the whole point of James 2 is to show that a true faith will in fact produce some outwardly signs, be they as simple as housing some strangers in need all the way to sacrificing your child if that’s what God has lead you to do. But those works (signs to people) are NOT what leads to righteousness. They rather follow along with that righteousness. They are horizontal types of faith and justifications (man-to-man) not a vertical fiath (man-to-God).Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21 ESV)
And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.(James 2:25-26 ESV)
As a OSAS and Sola-fide believer, I say Amen to James' words here. Absolutely, I can see where these were both events/actions/works perfomred by these two people that demonstrates to me they did in fact have true faith in God. I"m blessed that ehy have been recorded in the Bible. Else, why would they have done such things, had they not had true faith (as Peter would point out). It's a buch of pigs and dogs that don't show their true faith.
I’m also amazed at the dedication and hard work that many Christians, ministers, pastors, missionaries and priests perform. I do think it’s an indication that they have faith in Jesus (else why didicate their lives to this work). But it’s Jesus that is their Savior, not their works. And I clearly see that James agrees.
So, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. Let's say ALL translators agree that James 2:14 is ONLY translated "said faith" or "that faith" or whatever you want to say. How does this hurt my contention? Do you even know what my contention is? Hint: It has NOTHING to do with verse 14.
In case you've forgotten, let me remind you:
There are only two ways that I know of the interpret the word "justified" in James 2:21 and 25. Either it's "shown to be righteous", which you seem to agree with when you said "It’s faith to leads to salvation,
then comes the works to prove it to the humans viewing our works around us looking at our actions."
Or its "made/declared righteous".
If you think it's "shown to be righteous", than it's possible, as you SEEM (I don't want to get accused of "misrepresenting" your view) to say above, for us to PROVE we have "saving faith". If a person "shows" his true faith, then backslides, OSAS is false because he has PROVEN he was REALLY justified. The only option left is he HAD true faith and lost it.
If you think it's "made/declared righteous", then James is saying the same thing Paul is, that we are really justified (made righteous) by our "works".
This is my contention. Show me where I'm wrong.
)