Was James confused?

[mondar]

Rubbish!!!!

What James wrote was addressed to the Jews who were under the law. What Paul wrote was to the Gentiles.

They both were writing to Christians. Some had a Jewish background and others didn't. But the Gospel is the same - we are not under the Law of Moses anymore.

I suppose the question asked is "IS James part of Sacred Scriptures or not"?

If not, why should one believe that PAUL is part of Sacred Scriptures - and James (being the BROTHER OF CHRIST) IS NOT?! Perhaps the first Christians got it wrong and should have left out Paul???

Regards

Why hello francis.

I think this would be a good thread for you and I to discuss James 2.... once again.... Of course I still that James 2 is not talking about the nature of salvation (faith and works), but the nature of the faith that saves (works will "show" faith). The difference is critical. Paul would not disagree with what James says on the nature of faith, but if James is adding works to faith for salvation, then Paul would have a problem. But this is not what James is saying.

First, let me say that I do not agree with the interpretations of the posters in this thread on James 2. I would definitely agree that the books written by James and Paul can be applied to both Jews and Gentiles, and are both equally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and completely authoritative for doctrine, reproof... etc.

Second, I would suggest that we leave these matters and focus our conversation on exegesis. If I might go first and present some positive evidence and exegesis from my point of view?

In vs 14-20 there are two cycles of 3 parts.
CYCLE 1
14 ---statement
15-16 ---illustration
17 ---conclusion

CYCLE 2
18 ---statement
19 ---illustration
20 ---conclusion

Lets look at the statements in 14 and 18
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
*** Let us note the the c18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
*** James picture two men. It is the contrast between a man who "says he has faith" and the man who has works. Now the man with works also has faith. This can be seen by the later part of the verse which says "I by my works will show thee my faith." The question is which man can show his faith. Can the man who "says he has faith" show his faith? Again, the obvious and implied answer is no. This also implies, that the mere claim to faith, is meaningless and as verse 14 implies, it does not save.

Verses 15-16, 19 are illustrations. They illustrate that a "claim to have faith" proves nothing. It is meaningless because the nature of that claim is "dead." It is a dead faith. It is dead, because without works you cannot show faith. The Muslim, the Hindu, the demon, and many more can claim "I have faith." But the claim is dead. The claim is dead in the water because true faith produces fruit.

Verses 17 and 20 are the conclusions. Faith, without works is dead, or barren. The word dead is not referring to one who lost his faith.

CONCLUSIONS BY ME
If you again take that position, please show me where you get it from in this context exegetically. In fact, it is not there. The context is talking about a person who "claims to have faith." Nowhere does it speak of a person who once had faith, and lost it.

Let me modify the verses to say how you appear to read them.

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man once had faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me that you once had faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

 

[francisdesales]

Why hello francis.

Hello, Mondar. ;)

I think this would be a good thread for you and I to discuss James 2.... once again.... Of course I still that James 2 is not talking about the nature of salvation (faith and works), but the nature of the faith that saves (works will "show" faith).

I would like to hear you explain this distinction for me. Isn't the faith that saves part of the "nature of salvation"? Does not James distinguish, in salvific terms, that faith can be salvific and a faith without something is NOT salvific? I'll read on...

The difference is critical. Paul would not disagree with what James says on the nature of faith, but if James is adding works to faith for salvation, then Paul would have a problem. But this is not what James is saying.

To be honest, I think that Paul and James view the nature of faith differently, not the nature of salvation. Pauline "faith" often includes a variety of factors, such as obedience, love and hope, items that James does not include in his definition of faith, since he distinguishes between faith and obedience. Paul presumes obedience when he speaks about faith (as in Romans 4 - Abraham is righteous, but not by faith without obedience. Paul's statement observes obedience and calls it 'faith')...

First, let me say that I do not agree with the interpretations of the posters in this thread on James 2. I would definitely agree that the books written by James and Paul can be applied to both Jews and Gentiles, and are both equally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and completely authoritative for doctrine, reproof... etc.

Agree.

...

CONCLUSIONS BY ME
If you again take that position, please show me where you get it from in this context exegetically. In fact, it is not there. The context is talking about a person who "claims to have faith." Nowhere does it speak of a person who once had faith, and lost it.

The context is the writing itself, written to a Christian community. All Christians of the community were baptized, regenerated by the lather of baptism, buried with Christ by baptism, made children of God, sealed by the Spirit, etc... Baptism is how one ENTERS the community of believers. James knows this. He is quite knowledgeable about Jewish teachings on the parallel sacrament called circumcision and how IT enables one to enter into the community. Thus, when he writes as a servant of Christ, it is to OTHER servants of Christ, to teach and train them, exhort them or rebuke them - when they falter.

Not only do we have the external evidence, we also have general assumptions within the text that point to men who have/had faith. Even if it is "dead", they have faith, according to James...

Knowing [this], that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have [her] perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. James 1:3-4

Is this something you write to pagan unbelievers, knowing full well that faith is a gift given by God?

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. James 1:5-6

Let him ask in faith to unbelievers who never had faith???

Is there a need to continue? It seems perfectly obvious from internal evidence that James is writing to a Christian, believing community. He presumes throughout that they have faith - but it is currently dead.

Let me modify the verses to say how you appear to read them.

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man once had faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me that you once had faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Not at all. I read it as it currently is. The issue is not their past faith, but their current dead faith. The past faith and entrance into the Body of Christ is presumed by the very existence of the letter and its inclusion into the canon. It is a church letter written to a community of believers. James, actually NO ONE in the Bible, does not question whether someone had faith on day one when it is year 10 that I am aware of. The issue is whether they have saving faith NOW!

By their faith proclamation, they are born from above, and there is no reason to doubt such a thing by saying "uh, you were a bad boy today, maybe you were never saved 10 years ago..." I am not aware of a writer in Scriptures calling into doubt whether a community REALLY was a Christian community. The rebuking and exhorting throughout proves that they were, albeit imperfect.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Your saying both were written to Christians in the grace church is your idea. The first verse in James tells us who it was written to.

The Christian church is the continuation of the "12 tribes of Israel". This is the reason why the Apsotles continued that idea by replacing Judas Iscariot in Acts 1. James 1 says that he is a servant of Jesus Christ. Thus, James is writing to Christians who understand that the Christian community is the continuation of Israel.

If The book had been addressed to the grace church too God would have said so. The book of James was CLEARLY written to the Jews who were under the law.

Does Paul say he addresses the "grace church", whatever that means? He, as James, is addressing Christians in different geographical locations. James is addressing Christians with a Jewish background, so it is natural that he would mention "the 12 tribes", since he wants his Jewish Christian brothers to understand that THEY are the continuation of the New Israel and the link between the Gentiles being drawn into this New Israel and the men and women of the Covenant before Christ.

Regards

 

[MarkT]

The gospel of the kingdom is this - Blessed is the servant whom his master, when he comes, will find him feeding his household. Truly his master will set him over all his possessions. But the servant, who, when his master comes, he finds his servant not doing what he knows he should be doing, that servant will be cast out.

Lu 12:41 Peter said, "Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?" 42 And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, 'My master is delayed in coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48 But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.

I have my job. You have your job. Your job might be simply to believe, but you might be called upon at some time to provide a servant with food or lodging for a time. When the time comes you must be ready and willing to do so. You don’t know when that time will come or who you are dealing with. You just have to be ready.

Paul was an apostle. He was fearful. He had to preach the gospel. He knew if he didn’t he would be cast out. So was Paul justified by faith or by works? Anyone can see that it’s faith and works.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

Was James confused? Or was he still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included the Law?

James 2:20-21
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?
(NKJ)

No, he was not!!!!!!!  ---- He was accounted righteous before God several years earlier, BEFORE the birth of Isaac, and before he had done anything to "prove" his faith in God. 

Gen 15:4-6
4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
(NKJ)

Not only that, but God accounted him righteous solely for his faith in His Promises, and not by anything that He did.  Paul accurately reports this.  It seems that James, in order to mix salvation by works and faith, did not consider this fact in the scriptures.  It was not until Genesis 22, many years after Isaac was born, when Abraham was well over 100 years old, that he agreed to offer Isaac.
 
James writes:
22  You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23  And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Neither of those last two statements jives with the Genesis 15:4-6 account. Nowhere does the OT Scripture say that Abraham "was called God's friend" BECAUSE he was willing to offer up his son Isaac. In Isaiah 41:8 it states that God called Abraham His friend but nowhere in the context of the chapter does He say it was because Abraham offered up his son Isaac.

What James wrote, as shown above, is a direct contradiction of the Gospel that Paul taught and the account given in Gen 15:4-6. Abraham was righteous before God solely because he believed God’s promises.

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. Here are some facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.

1. The word “Law†is found in 18 places
2. The word “grace†is found in 2 places
3. The word “Christ†is found in 2 places
4. The word “Justified†is found in 2 place with the words “by works†after them
5. The words “by faith†is found 1 time (justified by works and not by faith only)

6. The word “cross†is not found
7. The word “reconciled†is not found
8. The word “sanctified†is not found
9. The word “saved†is not found
10. The words “in Christ†are not found

Written by: Richard Burger, 2003. Revised 2009

you do not understand the differnce between works of law and works of faith.Our works of FAITH make our faith perfect and they show the truth of our faith that it is not dead. Abraham proved his FAITH in His obedience to Gods words to him- not in obedience to the law. Abrahams works were works of FAITH meaning what you truly believe in your heart comes out in your confess and walk.

Paul did not teach that we are not justified by works of faith, He taught we are not justified by works of LAW. the Law is not of faith but the man who does them shall live by them. You cannot be justified by not eating pork but you can be justified by believing what God says to you enough to walk it out.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
2Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:

This is why the " hall of faith" in hebrews does not tell how everything was so great befcause of how well they kept the law- it tells of how great their faith is BY WHAT THEY WALKED IN THEIR FAITH.

It is not james who was confused it is you who is confused.If our faith is real we will LIVE IT hence " the just shall LIVE BY FAITH" If you are not LIVING by faith and just claiming to have faith with no walk then you are not just and your faith is dead. We are given many witnesses of how our FAITH makes us justified when we LIVE IT-

Hbr 11:4 ¶ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.


Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.


Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


Hbr 11:8 ¶ By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.


Hbr 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:


Hbr 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.


Hbr 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.


Hbr 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.


Hbr 11:13 ¶ These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


Hbr 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.


Hbr 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.


Hbr 11:16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


Hbr 11:17 ¶ By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],


Hbr 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:


Hbr 11:19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.


Hbr 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.


Hbr 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, [leaning] upon the top of his staff.


Hbr 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.


Hbr 11:23 ¶ By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw [he was] a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.


Hbr 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;


Hbr 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;


Hbr 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.


Hbr 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.


Hbr 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.


Hbr 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry [land]: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.


Hbr 11:30 ¶ By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.


Hbr 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.


Hbr 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets:


Hbr 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,


Hbr 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.


Hbr 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:


Hbr 11:36 And others had trial of [cruel] mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:


Hbr 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;


Hbr 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.


Hbr 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

 

[mondar]

I think this would be a good thread for you and I to discuss James 2.... once again.... Of course I still that James 2 is not talking about the nature of salvation (faith and works), but the nature of the faith that saves (works will "show" faith).

I would like to hear you explain this distinction for me. Isn't the faith that saves part of the "nature of salvation"? Does not James distinguish, in salvific terms, that faith can be salvific and a faith without something is NOT salvific? I'll read on...

Francis, thank you for your restrain and tolerance. It is appreciated.

Now concerning your comment/question. I think you are asking for more specific definitions, and your right, that should always be a part of a discussion. I think we see the passage in different definitional ways. You see it as.....
the man who has faith and works (VS) the man who has only faith.

I see it as.....
the man who has faith that can be shown by his works (VS) the man who does not have faith because he cannot demonstrate faith by his works.

The difference is critical. Paul would not disagree with what James says on the nature of faith, but if James is adding works to faith for salvation, then Paul would have a problem. But this is not what James is saying.

To be honest, I think that Paul and James view the nature of faith differently, not the nature of salvation. Pauline "faith" often includes a variety of factors, such as obedience, love and hope, items that James does not include in his definition of faith, since he distinguishes between faith and obedience. Paul presumes obedience when he speaks about faith (as in Romans 4 - Abraham is righteous, but not by faith without obedience. Paul's statement observes obedience and calls it 'faith')...

Articulation of issues is not easy. I fear replying to what you say above will only cloud us working on the exegesis of the passage.

I am not sure why you think James and Paul see the nature of faith in a different way. You say Paul would have assumed a faith that includes "obedience, love, and hope." Is that not the same as James requiring "works?"

Again, exploring this issue seems to me to cause us to head into a smoke screen. If you skip over replying here, I think it would be beneficial. Nevertheless, if you feel it is important to distinguish between Paul and James somehow you can continue your point. At this point, I dont see any differences between Paul and James on the nature of faith.

CONCLUSIONS BY ME
If you again take that position, please show me where you get it from in this context exegetically. In fact, it is not there. The context is talking about a person who "claims to have faith." Nowhere does it speak of a person who once had faith, and lost it.

The context is the writing itself, written to a Christian community. All Christians of the community were baptized, regenerated by the lather of baptism, buried with Christ by baptism, made children of God, sealed by the Spirit, etc... Baptism is how one ENTERS the community of believers. James knows this. He is quite knowledgeable about Jewish teachings on the parallel sacrament called circumcision and how IT enables one to enter into the community. Thus, when he writes as a servant of Christ, it is to OTHER servants of Christ, to teach and train them, exhort them or rebuke them - when they falter.

Not only do we have the external evidence, we also have general assumptions within the text that point to men who have/had faith. Even if it is "dead", they have faith, according to James...

Knowing [this], that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have [her] perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. James 1:3-4

Is this something you write to pagan unbelievers, knowing full well that faith is a gift given by God?

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. James 1:5-6

Let him ask in faith to unbelievers who never had faith???

Is there a need to continue? It seems perfectly obvious from internal evidence that James is writing to a Christian, believing community. He presumes throughout that they have faith - but it is currently dead.

I would agree that the addressee is a community of faith, but to bring the presupposition that this means the salvation, or regeneration, or the faith of each and every individual member of the community does not seem to follow.

More then this, you draw a parallel between the new covenant community of faith (baptism), and the old covenant community of faith (circumcision). There are several things about that I disagree with. One of them would be that I dont see Baptism as a symbol of the New Covenant community. But that is a completely different discussion. We can speak of that in a different thread. But let me assume your theology for a minute. I dont see that at circumcision, the infant circumcised was regenerated, nor saved. Circumcision was a symbol that the infant was in the Old Covenant community, but Paul frequently denied that being "Jewish" was saving. So then, how would your theology be consistent with regard to baptism under the new covenant? Why would that save, and the OT sign does not?

I think you are reading you theology into the context, but even after you read your theology into the context, does it still not result in things being inconsistent?

 

[RichardBurger]

James is not talking about doing works to prove faith, but that the proof of good works accompany true faith.

His statement is more in a form of a question, than an answer. He is addressing those who say they have faith, but produce no evidence of faith (good works/fruits of the spirit). Just as we would question a fruit tree, that produced no fruit. If it says it is a fruit tree, but produces no fruit, how then can I know it is really a fruit tree - except I find fruit on it.

No more can a Christian be a Christian, without good works accompanying their faith.

God didn't say that. Religious man has said it. The child of God is righteous because of the work of Jesus on the cross. Man's works will not get them anything.

 

[shad]

God didn't say that. Religious man has said it. The child of God is righteous because of the work of Jesus on the cross. Man's works will not get them anything.

You seem to be ignoring your opponents' claims over and over. Of course no one can do anything good unless the Holy Spirit helps us. The Holy Spirit will not help us if we are not willing to work for God with all our heart.

 

[francisdesales]

Now concerning your comment/question. I think you are asking for more specific definitions, and your right, that should always be a part of a discussion. I think we see the passage in different definitional ways. You see it as.....
the man who has faith and works (VS) the man who has only faith.

I see it as.....
the man who has faith that can be shown by his works (VS) the man who does not have faith because he cannot demonstrate faith by his works.

You have articulated my point. I do not believe the context supports your view, either internally or externally. So let's continue.

To be honest, I think that Paul and James view the nature of faith differently, not the nature of salvation. Pauline "faith" often includes a variety of factors, such as obedience, love and hope, items that James does not include in his definition of faith, since he distinguishes between faith and obedience. Paul presumes obedience when he speaks about faith (as in Romans 4 - Abraham is righteous, but not by faith without obedience. Paul's statement observes obedience and calls it 'faith')...

Articulation of issues is not easy. I fear replying to what you say above will only cloud us working on the exegesis of the passage.

I think, as you state above, we better straighten this out first, so we don't talk past each other. We need to define "faith" and "works" as per both of our authors before we can do proper exegesis, my friend.

I am not sure why you think James and Paul see the nature of faith in a different way. You say Paul would have assumed a faith that includes "obedience, love, and hope." Is that not the same as James requiring "works?"

Well, IF we can agree that James faith + works = Paul's faith, then I can say man is saved by faith alone. Isn't that wonderful, we could agree on something???

Hey, we can end this thing called "Protestantism" and just be on the same side again! ;)

So, to begin, I'll show an example of both of our vaunted author's views on the same subject, the call of Abraham. How is that?

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:2-3

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:21,23-24

It is clear that both authors are citing the EXACT same verse from Scriptures. Now, if we believe that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict, we MUST conclude that the two men had different ideas of the definitions that WE are discussing. They can NOT POSSIBLY have the same meaning to BOTH authors...

For one says one cannot be justified by works, the other says one is justified by works and not faith alone.

Thus, for the two to agree, Paul's "faith" above must refer to faith and works of obedience and trust, while James' definition of faith is more truncated and requires the obedience outwardly displayed (work).

I would agree that the addressee is a community of faith, but to bring the presupposition that this means the salvation, or regeneration, or the faith of each and every individual member of the community does not seem to follow.

James is speaking to the church in general, which presumes all are baptized, since baptism is the door into the community, the Church. A letter to the church presumes a letter to the baptized.

Now, if there is some catechumen listening in on the reading of James, it wouldn't apply to him, since James cannot EXPECT a pagan to perform salvific works! Do you? Again, the charge of Pelagianism falls upon those who think otherwise. Thus, James must presume that he is speaking to men and women who are ABLE to respond to the letter - thus, yes, they were saved, regenerated. The unregenerated do not have within them the POWER to provide works that save, so again, I find your explanation of James writing the letter as incorrect.

On baptism/circumcision, yes, that can come later...

Regards

 

[Drew]

This is not to be confused with the doctrine of justification by faith alone preached by Paul. In Romans and Galatians Paul denies that works have any place in justification.

No. What Paul denies is the possibility of justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses. The reformation has, I suggest, erred in taking "works" to refer to good works when Paul is really talking about the Law of Moses.

Pick any text you like on this matter - where you think Paul denies justification by good works - and I will provide the relevant argument that Paul is not denying justification by good works, but rather by the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

So, to begin, I'll show an example of both of our vaunted author's views on the same subject, the call of Abraham. How is that?

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:2-3

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:21,23-24

It is clear that both authors are citing the EXACT same verse from Scriptures. Now, if we believe that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict, we MUST conclude that the two men had different ideas of the definitions that WE are discussing. They can NOT POSSIBLY have the same meaning to BOTH authors...

For one says one cannot be justified by works, the other says one is justified by works and not faith alone.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[dadof10]

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:2-3

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:21,23-24

It is clear that both authors are citing the EXACT same verse from Scriptures. Now, if we believe that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict, we MUST conclude that the two men had different ideas of the definitions that WE are discussing. They can NOT POSSIBLY have the same meaning to BOTH authors...

For one says one cannot be justified by works, the other says one is justified by works and not faith alone.

Thus, for the two to agree, Paul's "faith" above must refer to faith and works of obedience and trust, while James' definition of faith is more truncated and requires the obedience outwardly displayed (work).

Nice!!!

 

[dadof10]

you do not understand the differnce between works of law and works of faith.Our works of FAITH make our faith perfect and they show the truth of our faith that it is not dead. Abraham proved his FAITH in His obedience to Gods words to him- not in obedience to the law. Abrahams works were works of FAITH meaning what you truly believe in your heart comes out in your confess and walk.

Paul did not teach that we are not justified by works of faith, He taught we are not justified by works of LAW. the Law is not of faith but the man who does them shall live by them. You cannot be justified by not eating pork but you can be justified by believing what God says to you enough to walk it out.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
2Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:

This is why the " hall of faith" in hebrews does not tell how everything was so great befcause of how well they kept the law- it tells of how great their faith is BY WHAT THEY WALKED IN THEIR FAITH.

It is not james who was confused it is you who is confused.If our faith is real we will LIVE IT hence " the just shall LIVE BY FAITH" If you are not LIVING by faith and just claiming to have faith with no walk then you are not just and your faith is dead. We are given many witnesses of how our FAITH makes us justified when we LIVE IT-

If we refuse to do the "works of faith", will this effect our salvation? If a saved person walks by a homeless person and says "be warm and well fed", will this selfish act negatively effect his salvation?

 

[mondar]

Well, IF we can agree that James faith + works = Paul's faith, then I can say man is saved by faith alone. Isn't that wonderful, we could agree on something???

Sorry to disappoint you, I would not agree with the equation. I would see a direct association between James and Paul as non-sequiter. If you remember, I was suggesting that James is not referring to the nature of salvation, but the nature of faith. There can be no equation.

Hey, we can end this thing called "Protestantism" and just be on the same side again! ;)

LOL, yes, I have heard that Luther's excommunication has been rescinded, but I am still waiting for Trent to be amended to not express so many anathema's toward "this thing called protestantism."

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:2-3

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:21,23-24

It is clear that both authors are citing the EXACT same verse from Scriptures. Now, if we believe that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict, we MUST conclude that the two men had different ideas of the definitions that WE are discussing. They can NOT POSSIBLY have the same meaning to BOTH authors...

For one says one cannot be justified by works, the other says one is justified by works and not faith alone.

Thus, for the two to agree, Paul's "faith" above must refer to faith and works of obedience and trust, while James' definition of faith is more truncated and requires the obedience outwardly displayed (work).

I would disagree here once again. The difference between Paul and James is in the object of the justification. Please pay close attention to the way I am using the term justified or just in the next paragraphs. The term does not always have to refer to salvation. The term can refer to non-soteriological things. If a man comes at me with a knife and I shoot him with a gun, was I justified in my self defense? Of course I am using the term in that sentence in a non-soteriological way.
In Paul, the sinner Gentile (Ch 1) and Jew (Ch 2), stands justified before the Divine judge on the basis of the blood of Christ (5:9).
In James the issue is not the justification of the sinner in Gods sight through imputation. The justification in James is referring too is the man in verse 18 who makes the mere claim to have faith, and has no works. Is that man without works just in making the claim that he has faith? So then, in James, a man is not made just by a claim to faith, but on the basis of works. If there were an equation, it would look like this.
works + works = justified claim of faith

 

[mondar]

This is not to be confused with the doctrine of justification by faith alone preached by Paul. In Romans and Galatians Paul denies that works have any place in justification.

No. What Paul denies is the possibility of justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses. The reformation has, I suggest, erred in taking "works" to refer to good works when Paul is really talking about the Law of Moses.

Pick any text you like on this matter - where you think Paul denies justification by good works - and I will provide the relevant argument that Paul is not denying justification by good works, but rather by the works of the Law of Moses.

Drew,
I think we are looking to have a conversation about the context of James. If you wish to engage me in a conversation about Paul, can you start another thread?

 

[francisdesales]

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:2-3

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:21,23-24

It is clear that both authors are citing the EXACT same verse from Scriptures. Now, if we believe that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict, we MUST conclude that the two men had different ideas of the definitions that WE are discussing. They can NOT POSSIBLY have the same meaning to BOTH authors...

For one says one cannot be justified by works, the other says one is justified by works and not faith alone.

Thus, for the two to agree, Paul's "faith" above must refer to faith and works of obedience and trust, while James' definition of faith is more truncated and requires the obedience outwardly displayed (work).

I would disagree here once again. The difference between Paul and James is in the object of the justification.

You are changing the subject. No need for smoke and mirrors - James is talking about salvation, he says so in James 2:14. We were tallking about whether James and Paul have the same definition of faith. Clearly, they don't. Can you address that, first, please?

Thanks.

 

[mondar]

You are changing the subject. No need for smoke and mirrors - James is talking about salvation, he says so in James 2:14. We were tallking about whether James and Paul have the same definition of faith. Clearly, they don't. Can you address that, first, please?

Thanks.

I dont see how I am changing the subject, or doing anything like smoke and mirrors. Actually, it is you that refuses to address what I am saying. Certainly you will come back to verse 14, but where is your exegesis of verse 18? Will anyone that disagrees with me show that verse 18 can be read in any other way then what I read it?

Saying James 2:14 mentions the issue of salvation is nothing new. I previously mentioned this myself before your comment. While verse 14 makes it clear that a person who "says he has faith" with evil works, that faith does not save. I have said nothing different. But salvation is still not the question of the passage, or the key verse is mentioned in verse 18.
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

The question concerns "show me." (I have always been tempted to suggest James was from Missouri.) A person might claim to have faith, but is it a show me kind of faith? If it is not a "show me" kind of faith, then James is saying it is not the real deal. In verse 18 James calls for the man who claims to have faith "show me thy faith apart from thy works." Of course the idea is that without works, you cannot show me that you have faith. How else can a person show he has faith other then his works?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

What you miss, is the words "Show me." There is no "show me" in your concept of James 2. Where is your exegesis of verse 18? Once you admit that the issue is "show me" then you have defined the place of works with regard to faith. Until then, you fail to actually read verse 14 in light of the whole context including verse 18 and the words "show me."

____________________________________________________________________________________-
EXTRA COMMENTS
Let me add.... We do agree on one thing. I admit that many in the OSAS camp would disagree with James. Some of them think that the mere claim of faith is sufficient and no justification of that claim is needed. Both of us disagree, but in very different ways.

The OSAS people think that you just have to be sorry for a few sins, you just have to walk the sawdust trail, or sign on the dotted line and then you have your ticket punched for your trainride to heaven. I think James is refuting the concept of the OSAS kind of faith, a mere claim to faith. Many OSASers do not believe that one must "show me" your faith to have a justified claim to a true faith. James is saying that true faith will persevere, it will have fruits (or works). True faith will endure to the end. A person with a the "show me" kind of faith has a faith that spawns from regeneration.

 

[francisdesales]

You are changing the subject. No need for smoke and mirrors - James is talking about salvation, he says so in James 2:14. We were tallking about whether James and Paul have the same definition of faith. Clearly, they don't. Can you address that, first, please?

Thanks.

I dont see how I am changing the subject, or doing anything like smoke and mirrors. Actually, it is you that refuses to address what I am saying.

Mondar,

If you are unable to comment on my correcting your idea that James and Paul have the same thing in mind when they write about "faith", then just say so.

If you are having problems with the verses in question, we can go through them again. I am presuming that you believe that the Scriptures cannot contradict. They cite the same verse in the OT and on this, they draw opposite conclusions, on the surface. They both speak about being justified/being saved, but define "faith" differently.

Now, since I asked you first, please answer. Then, I will address your concerns about justification and salvation.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

If you are unable to comment on my correcting your idea that James and Paul have the same thing in mind when they write about "faith", then just say so.

If you are having problems with the verses in question, we can go through them again.

I did comment, but you are ignoring what I wrote. I dont think you ignore it intentionally, but you probably dont understand what I wrote.

I already commented on the connection between verses 14 and 18 in the previous post. Would you like me to restate it? I am sure you can go back and read it again more closely if you need.

I am presuming that you believe that the Scriptures cannot contradict. They cite the same verse in the OT and on this, they draw opposite conclusions, on the surface. They both speak about being justified/being saved, but define "faith" differently.

Of course I believe that the scriptures cannot contradict, surely you know that. Why would you suggest otherwise? Where did I suggest there is a contradiction? Francis, it seems to me you are making something up about me. Why do you say this?

I did say that the contexts of Paul and James are not the same. Paul is speaking of Justification in the sense of salvation. So then faith is the human requirement for justification/salvation. James is not talking about justification in that sense, but is using the term to speak of justification of the claim to have faith.

Let me chart it like this...
James ---- works leads to justification of the claim "I have faith."
Paul ----- Faith leads to justification before the divine judge, God.

********** Now I suspect you approach the issue with a presupposition. You presuppose that because both James and Paul quote the same text, that this proves you point. You have not even considered that they are quoting the same OT text to establish two different (but no contradictory) points. Why is this so shocking? Are you saying that each verse of scripture has only one application?

Notice that James quotes Genesis 22. Paul never bothers quoting from Genesis 22. Why? James is interested in showing that Genesis 15 and the claim that Abraham has faith ... that claim is justified because of Abraham's works in Genesis 22.

On the other hand, Paul quotes only Genesis 15. Why? They are quoting the passage in two different contexts to make two different applications. The applications are not contradictory as you assume.

Lets look at the text you allude to.
(ASV) Jas 2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.

First, notice the words "and the scripture was fulfilled." Yet, Genesis the context of Genesis 15:6 s not prophetic. It is not a prophecy. James is using the term "fulfilled" not in the sense of predictive prophecy, but in the sense that Gods statement in Genesis 15:6 is the faith that will be "show me" in Genesis 22.

Fulfilled = show me Abraham's faith is fulfilled, because in Genesis 22 it was a "show me" faith.

Paul (Romans 4) is of course saying that faith is the human requirement for justification, and not works.

James is saying that Abraham's works in Genesis 22... (NAS--Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? ) are the works that "show me your faith" and so they function to justify Abraham's claim "I have faith." (see verse 14.)

By the way, I can put the whole context together into a unified whole. It all fits together. Why do you refuse to discuss James 2:18? I can discuss any verse and how it works in with the context. Can you?

 

[francisdesales]

I did comment, but you are ignoring what I wrote. I dont think you ignore it intentionally, but you probably dont understand what I wrote.

Yea, that's it...sigh...

Ok Mondar, let's go down your road and do it the hard way...

Of course I believe that the scriptures cannot contradict, surely you know that. Why would you suggest otherwise? Where did I suggest there is a contradiction? Francis, it seems to me you are making something up about me. Why do you say this?

I thought you changed religions with your Pelagian mindset from our last posts on Matt 7. Who knows what Protestants believe from week to week, so why should I presume, when I get people here saying all kinds of things? I am merely covering the bases, because James and Paul have an apparent disagreement and we must explain this OR presume that the people who put the Canon together were wrong (as some here think).

I did say that the contexts of Paul and James are not the same. Paul is speaking of Justification in the sense of salvation. So then faith is the human requirement for justification/salvation. James is not talking about justification in that sense, but is using the term to speak of justification of the claim to have faith.

You are inventing a new set of charecteristics for justification. In both my citations, we are speaking of being "righteous in the eyes of God". Where do we find "men" here? When speaking of salvation, that's all that matters, not the opinions of men. Men don't determine who is saved, God does. Thus, claiming "human requirements" is more smoke and mirrors, which CERTAINLY does not apply to James. Note what he uses as an example: the offering of Isaac. Further exploration of Scriptures will show you are inventing something not there.

Now, if you turn your bible to Genesis 22, you'll find that there was no human audience when Abraham was "declared righteous". This is the same as in Genesis 12. The contexts are the same, the only difference is that Genesis 12 is the first time Abraham responds, while Genesis 22 is one of many future times Abraham responds.

Now, WHO was a witness to the inner thoughts of Abram when God called him to pick up and move to Palestine? WHO was a witness to the sacrifice of Isaac? God, in both cases. Thus, you invent a false dilineation, your "justification to salvation" .vs your "justification in the eyes of men".

Nonsense. Genesis 22 has no men clapping and hollering "GOOD GOING, Abraham, we justify you in our eyes". "You da man".

NO! It is GOD HIMSELF who says "NOW I KNOW...". GOD HIMSELF calls Abraham just in Genesis 12 AND Genesis 22. It is your doctrine that forces you to see justification as a one-time event, when clearly, it is not a one-time event. Your dogma does not allow justification as an ongoing process, despite the Scriptures saying that it is. Every time we pass such a test in God's eyes, we are again justified in God's eyes, more just, if you will, as more graces have flown to us from God. God actually SEES US as just, not just pretends we are by legal proclamation.

Let me chart it like this...
James ---- works leads to justification of the claim "I have faith."
Paul ----- Faith leads to justification before the divine judge, God.

Again, you ignore my citation, that says "and GOD declared them righteous". Just because James speaks about showing one's faith by works does NOT mean he is awaiting the approval of men!!! WRONG, my friend. He knows he is just in God's eyes already, he doesn't need man's approval.

Justification is by God in both chronologies. James is merely speaking of manifesting the gift already given, our justification from GOD. Justification is displayed by our faithful obedience to God, whether one picks up his entire family and moves to Palestine or whether he is about to sacrifice his only child to God. THESE are manifestations of faithful obedience, evidence that God has declared one righteous and just.

Isn't it clear that in both cases, Abraham displayed his faith through an obedient work???

********** Now I suspect you approach the issue with a presupposition. You presuppose that because both James and Paul quote the same text, that this proves you point. You have not even considered that they are quoting the same OT text to establish two different (but no contradictory) points. Why is this so shocking? Are you saying that each verse of scripture has only one application?

You missed the boat while busily making your "presupposition" accusation, blindly ignoring your own - that justification is a one-time event and that's it...

In both cases that I cited from, God declared them righteous, two different events - God declared Abraham righteous, just. Now, once we are done with this wild goose chase of yours, you will again have to address the fact that Paul and James have different definitions of faith, since they BOTH are speaking of being made just in God's eyes, being saved, justified...

On the other hand, Paul quotes only Genesis 15. Why? They are quoting the passage in two different contexts to make two different applications. The applications are not contradictory as you assume.

Again, you missed my point, see above. They both speak about Abraham being made just by God. In God's eyes. Thus, their defintions of "faith" must not be the same, since otherwise, they oppose each other. In BOTH cases, Gen 12 and 22, Abraham is justified in God's eyes, saved. Paul places "obedience and action" into his definition of faith, for it is quite obvious that Abraham got of his pants and moved to Palestine, that is an action that was NECESSARY to be called "faith" by Paul. James is more narrow, seeing faith as intellectual movement of the mind, acceptance of a fact. Thus, even the devil believes. He speaks of non-saving faith. Obviously, Paul and James' view of faith differs, and that is my point.

They speak about the same thing, being justified in God's eyes, but have different definitions. This is why I thought it would be crucial to discuss this to clarify the differences that we have and that we could come to some agreement on this issue, IF we understood that they are talking about the same thing using different defintions.

Regards