Paul and James Reconciled

[2PhiloVoid]

I give up. . .what book am I using?

Well, since I don't know which book and/or method of Hermeneutics you're using to explain the Bible, I'm going to assume that you're inviting me and my wife over for brunch and you'll be divulging this secret to me at that time (?)

 

[Clare73]

I give up. . .what book am I using?

Ad hominum. . .again.

Well, since I don't know which book and/or method of Hermeneutics you're using to explain the Bible, I'm going to assume that you're inviting me and my wife over for brunch and you'll be divulging this secret to me at that time (?)

I gave up. . .the ball is in your court.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I gave up. . .the ball is in your court.

Just know upfront that I'm not here to disprove your position on faith, grace and the Law. In fact, in some ways, I will probably very much agree with you. The only thing I'd like to understand better is how you approach the topic of Faith and the Law. Do you use notes from your pastor along with your reading of the Bible? Or do you write out your own notes by yourself?

 

[Clare73]

Just know upfront that I'm not here to disprove your position on faith, grace and the Law. In fact, in some ways, I will probably very much agree with you. The only thing I'd like to understand better is how you approach the topic of Faith and the Law. Do you use notes from your pastor along with your reading of the Bible? Or do you write out your own notes by yourself?

Actually, it's the product of much study and research, including a deep dive into Leviticus--most profitable, where I worked it all out systematically, and happily found it confirmed in the Westminster Confession, which made me a Presbyterian in mind, but always a Southern Baptist at heart.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, it's the product of much study and research, including a deep dive into Leviticus--most profitable, where I worked it all out systematically, and happily found it confirmed in the Westminster Confession, which made me a Presbyterian in mind, but always a Southern Baptist at heart.

All of that sounds commendable to me, and I can't complaint about any of it really. You've obviously put in a lot of work to get to the bottom of this issue, and I agree it is an important one.

I guess to be honest with you, I kind of take a middle of the road position on the relationship between authentic faith and the Law and being that this is the case, I'm not one who feels too concerned either way with whether a person thinks Paul and James conflicted or they didn't. I tend to think they didn't, but I also just kind of let folks land on this issue where they feel comfortable to do so and in league with their local church.

Anyway, thank you for answering my question, sister Clare73. I appreciate it!

 

[Clare73]

All of that sounds commendable to me, and I can't complaint about any of it really. You've obviously put in a lot of work to get to the bottom of this issue, and I agree it is an important one.

I guess to be honest with you, I kind of take a middle of the road position on the relationship between authentic faith and the Law and being that this is the case, I'm not one who feels too concerned either way with whether a person thinks Paul and James conflicted or they didn't. I tend to think they didn't, but I also just kind of let folks land on this issue where they feel comfortable to do so and in league with their local church.

Anyway, thank you for answering my question, sister Clare73. I appreciate it!

It was important to me to understand things correctly; i.e., in harmony with all Scripture, as stated, no fudging allowed, and in its context.

But personally, I'm the same way as you, however, in a discussion on the topic I will defend NT teaching, and when NT teaching is discredited or minimized, depending on the importance of the teaching as it relates to the gospel, I will defend it accordingly.

Thanks for your kind response.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was important to me to understand things correctly; i.e., in harmony with all Scripture, as stated, no fudging allowed, and in its context.

But personally, I'm the same way as you, however, in a discussion on the topic I will defend NT teaching, and when NT teaching is discredited or minimized, depending on the importance of the teaching as it relates to the gospel, I will defend it accordingly.

Thanks for your kind response.

You're welcome! I value the attempt that my fellow Chritians make to defend the Gospel and to handle the Word of God accurately. ... it's just, I'm not seeing that they really do, so I'm kind of left wondering why everyone of various views upon the Scriptures are so adamant.

For instance, you've said that you want your own personal understanding to harmonize with all Scripture (and respect that quite a bit). You also said that you want your understanding to harmonize with Scripture "as stated" with "no fudging allowed." And you've said you'll stand your ground on this.

Well, what exactly do you consider "fudging" to be in this case? And again, I'll be up front and honest with you here: I think fellow Christians holding various and opposing views--both pro and con--on this alledged Paul/James divide, as well as the corollary issues of OSAS, do some "fudging."

But, it could turn out that you're right on your specific layout of the issue.

 

[Clare73]

You're welcome! I value the attempt that my fellow Chritians make to defend the Gospel and to handle the Word of God accurately. ... it's just, I'm not seeing that they really do, so I'm kind of left wondering why everyone of various views upon the Scriptures are so adamant.

For instance, you've said that you want your own personal understanding to harmonize with all Scripture (and respect that quite a bit). You also said that you want your understanding to harmonize with Scripture "as stated" with "no fudging allowed." And you've said you'll stand your ground on this.

Well, what exactly do you consider "fudging" to be in this case? And again, I'll be up front and honest with you here: I think fellow Christians holding various and opposing views--both pro and con--on this alledged Paul/James divide, as well as the corollary issues of OSAS, do some "fudging."

But, it could turn out that you're right on your specific layout of the issue.

Well, I didn't have Jas 2:24 in mind, but it's a good question.

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

It is because I take Jas 2:24, based on the argument he provides, as well as his conclusion as stated, that I come to the conclusion of my post #36.

However, to give James whatever benefit of the doubt there could possibly be, one could say, as did Luther, that James meant: "by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You keep repeating "free grace" and that in itself is a mistaken teaching. While there is a sense in which justification is separate from sanctification, there is also a sense in which justification and sanctification are intimately linked. If we fail to maintain both relationships we end up in error, either teaching that we are earning our salvation or that there is no need for obedience and discipleship. Much of the Bible must be thrown out for "free grace" including a large majority of the gospels such as Jesus' words in Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 and many other places. The hyper grace movement, which is often marked by claiming things like "free grace" is exactly one such error where people are being taught that there is no need for holiness, no bid to come and die. By mistaking a polemic use for an absolute use many in the protestant movement have gone as far astray into a false liberality becoming once again slaves of sin rather than slaves of righteousness.

Well, the problem here with slamming those who seem to think there's "free grace" is that those who disagree and instead aver that grace comes with a price aren't always able to clearly explain just how "good" a Christian has to be for an expression of faith to be real.

It would probably be best for all of us to just realize we don't have all of the details that we'd like to have in order to create a fully systematized and comprehensive understanding of the "Faith/Works" relationship, whether Pro or Con.

 

[Fervent]

Well, the problem here with slamming those who seem to think there's "free grace" is that those who disagrdee and instead aver that grace comes with a price aren't always able to clearly explain just how "good" a Christian has to be for an expression of faith to be real.

It would probably be best for all of us to just realize we don't have all of the details that we'd like to have in order to create a fully systematized understanding of the "Faith/Works" relationship.

I don't mean to slam those who speak of "free grace," but the teaching alone. The concept that we have no obligation to live righteously and instead God's sole object with the gospel is our pleasure(essentially) is a distortion of the truly freely given grace. If there was any hostility in my response to her, it was a response to her accusational posturing in claiming that I know nothing of the gospel and attempt to link me with the Galatian judaizers. I absolutely agree we can't make a systematized understanding of "faith/works" relationship, in fact that is largely my disagreement with her because I simply state that placing a hard line between justification and sanctification as two completely separate things is mistaken except in polemic use. The distortion leads to opposition to any call for holiness in the life of the believer as a form of legalism, rather than simply recognizing that the works themselves are entirely from the merits of Christ and not the believer themselves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't mean to slam those who speak of "free grace," but the teaching alone. The concept that we have no obligation to live righteously and instead God's sole object with the gospel is our pleasure(essentially) is a distortion of the truly freely given grace. If there was any hostility in my response to her, it was a response to her accusational posturing in claiming that I know nothing of the gospel and attempt to link me with the Galatian judaizers. I absolutely agree we can't make a systematized understanding of "faith/works" relationship, in fact that is largely my disagreement with her because I simply state that placing a hard line between justification and sanctification as two completely separate things is mistaken except in polemic use. The distortion leads to opposition to any call for holiness in the life of the believer as a form of legalism, rather than simply recognizing that the works themselves are entirely from the merits of Christ and not the believer themselves.

ok. I can sympathize with your points here. But was she actually saying that no holiness is needed as a part of our expression of Christian faith?

 

[Clare73]

Well, the problem here with slamming those who seem to think there's "free grace" is that those who disagree and instead aver that grace comes with a price aren't always able to clearly explain just how "good" a Christian has to be for an expression of faith to be real.

It's about the heart in saving faith, who really reigns there, and we don't always know the heart of others, but God does.

It would probably be best for all of us to just realize we don't have all of the details that we'd like to have in order to create a fully systematized and comprehensive understanding of the "Faith/Works" relationship, whether Pro or Con.

Oh, but we do. . .God did not leave us an incomplete Word.
.

 

[Fervent]

ok. I can sympathize with your points here. But was she actually saying that no holiness is needed as a part of our expression of Christian faith?

Were my comments accusational in that direction? I don't feel they were, but I appreciate the perspective. I latched onto the phrasing "free grace" because it's become a watch-word for a movement that teaches an unbalanced theology, in response to the dispute I was already having with her. She may not have been teaching it immediately, but the movement that phraseology is most heavily associated with actively opposes calls to holiness and accuses those who make such calls of teaching a "mixed gospel." It's like if someone said "word of faith," it has a link with a specific movement that teaches name it-claim it theology. There are certain buzzwords that indicate a specific theology, and that was what I was seizing on in connection with the dispute she and I were having on whether to place that hard line between justification and sanctification.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, but we do. . .God did not leave us an incomplete Word.

What does "complete" mean to you, sister Clare73? I think we're going to end up talking past each other since we both, as fellow Christians, may be using the same words but with different meanings.

My point is that I don't think the Bible was given so that we can 'create' systematized theologies [plural] by which we then push through into our societies without ongoing accountability. Paul indicated as much to the Corinithians, I think.

It's alright for us each to surmise and express what we 'think' some piece of Scripture means and how it may apply to our faith and lives, but just because we have that freedom doesn't mean God has intended to answer all of our questions by which we then articulate and enforce certain interpretations.

 

[Clare73]

If there was any hostility in my response to her, it was a response to her accusational posturing in

claiming that I know nothing of the gospel and attempt to link me with the Galatian judaizers.

You demonstrate that yourself.
My "accusational posturing" regarding your perverting the gospel (Gal 1:7) by adding works to "justification by faith apart from works" (Ro 3:28, 4:5) is somewhat short of Paul's cursing the Judaizers, who were likewise perverting the gospel by adding, among other OT rites, the work of circumcision to justification by faith (Gal 1:6-9).

You link yourself to the Galatian Judaizers, by adding works to "justification by faith"
(posts #75, 77) and don't even see it is the same perversion of the gospel!

Nothing mistaken about it. . .the very definition of grace is "unmerited favor."

While there is a sense in which justification is separate from sanctification, there is also a sense in which justification and sanctification are intimately linked.

Of course there is. . .there are two kinds of righteousness in the NT:
1) justification - declared "not guilty," given right standing before God, a state of relationship
2) sanctification - growth in holiness (righteousness) through obedience

And since sanctification (righteousness) is the fruit of justification (righteousness), the word "righteousness" sometimes means both sanctification and justification.

If we fail to maintain both relationships we end up in error, either teaching that we are earning our salvation or that there is no need for obedience and discipleship.

That error is what sitting under good teaching prevents.

Much of the Bible must be thrown out for "free grace" including a large majority of the gospels

And that would also include the very definition itself: "unmerited favor". . .

such as Jesus' words in Matthew 7 and Matthew 25 and many other places. The hyper grace movement, which is often marked by claiming things like "free grace" is exactly one such error where people are being taught that there is no need for holiness, no bid to come and die. By mistaking a polemic use for an absolute use many in the protestant movement have gone as far astray into a false liberality becoming once again slaves of sin rather than slaves of righteousness.

And the remedy is not throwing out the doctrine. . .that's throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The remedy is throwing out the bath water, and replacing it with good teaching.

Don't blame the doctrine, blame the teachers.[/QUOTE]

 

[Clare73]

What does "complete" mean to you, sister Clare73? I think we're going to end up talking past each other since we both, as fellow Christians, may be using the same words but with different meanings.

That everything regarding it is answered therein. . .if we are willing to take it as its Word, no fudging.

My point is that I don't think the Bible was given so that we can 'create' systematized theologies [plural] by which we then push through into our societies without ongoing accountability. Paul indicated as much to the Corinithians, I think.

The Bible was given for teaching, for rebuking, for correction and training in righteousness,
all of which require correct understanding of it, and that's where systemization comes in, for
there can be no good understanding of anything multifaceted without systemization.

It's alright for us each to surmise and express what we 'think' some piece of Scripture means and how it may apply to our faith and lives, but just because we have that freedom doesn't mean God has intended to answer all of our questions by which we then articulate and enforce certain interpretations.

However, our questions are answered there. . .if we will receive them.

 

[Fervent]

Nothing mistaken about it. . .the very definition of grace is "unmerited favor."

Of course there is. . .there are two kinds of righteousness in the NT:
1) justification - declared "not guilty," given right standing before God, a state of relationship
2) sanctification - growth in holiness (righteousness) through obedience

And since sanctification (righteousness) is the fruit of justification (righteousness), the word "righteousness" sometimes means both sanctification and justification.

That error is what sitting under good teaching prevents.

And that would also include the very definition itself: "unmerited favor". . .

And the remedy is not throwing out the doctrine. . .throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The remedy is throwing out the bath water, and replacing it with good teaching.

Don't blame the doctrine, blame the teachers.

The teachers are merely teaching the full implications of the doctrine, because the doctrine itself is incomplete. You keep restating your position, but placing a hard line between justification and sanctification doesn't simply put a barrier between James and Paul, which would be bad enough on it's own, but it puts Paul contrary to Jesus and even places Paul teaching contrary things himself. All Biblical authors affirm that we are justified by our works, Jesus tells those who don't know Him in Matthew 7 that they are lawless yet those who forward the "free grace" ideas would have us be without governance. Jesus in Matthew 25 says to those who are departing "Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’" placing their judgement entirely on their works. Paul also tells us "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." affirming that we are justified by doing the law, and again in Galatians "For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law." So to strip a handful of verses of their context, declare them emphatic, and then hang an entire system on that understanding of those verses as a doctrine is to ignore the teachings of the Bible as a whole and instead replace them with the doctrines of men. "Free grace" isn't about unmerited favor, but contrasting it with the historic teachings of a costly grace by great men of the faith like Dietrich Boenhoeffer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That everything regarding it is answered therein. . .if we are willing to take it as its Word, no fudging.

Ok. I can agree that we should be willing to read the New Testament as it was intending to be understood, even in full if possible. But what is your definition of "fudging"? What does this term mean to you specifically?

The Bible was given for teaching, for rebuking, for correction and training in righteousness,
all of which require correct understanding of it.

Ok. And which books is this scripture referring to?

There can be no sound teaching of anything multifaceted without systemization.

I'm not understanding what your method of systematization involves. Do you care to briefly explain it to me?

However, our questions are answered there. . .if we will receive them.

I agree. We need to receive them, but not everything in Scripture is clear for us to receive with ease, is it?

 

[Clare73]

The teachers are merely teaching the full implications of the doctrine, because

the doctrine itself is incomplete.

No incomplete doctrine in my Bible. . .

The incompleteness is not in the doctrine, it's in one's understanding.

You keep restating your position, but placing a hard line between justification and sanctification doesn't simply
put a barrier between James and Paul, which would be bad enough on it's own, but it
puts Paul contrary to Jesus and even
places Paul teaching contrary things himself.

It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate those assertions.

All Biblical authors affirm that we are justified by our works,

"Biblical" authors? The author of the Holy Scriptures is the Holy Spirit.

And WRONG! Not in the NT use of the term "justified". . .declared "not guilty," given right standing before God, a state of right relationship to God.

Please provide Biblical demonstration of those assertions.

Jesus tells those who don't know Him in Matthew 7 that they are lawless yet
those who forward the "free grace" ideas would have us be without governance.

Is that what Scripture teaches?

If not, don't blame the Scriptures for the doctrine.

Jesus in Matthew 25 says to those who are departing "Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ placing their judgement entirely on their works

Their works revealing their hearts, whether they are truly converted to God or not.

Paul also tells us
"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified."

Please give the locations of your quotes so that the context may be considered.

You're doing what you accuse others of doing, "forwarding" what the text, in its context, does not present
Actually, in the context (Ro 2:1-24) of Ro 2:13 itself, Paul is saying the opposite of what you allege.

The context is Paul's demonstration of the unrighteousness of all mankind (1:18-3:20), where he first gives the principles
that govern God's judgment of mankind:
1) according to truth (v. 2),
2) according to deeds (vv. 6-11), and
3) according to the light one has (vv. 12-15),
as the basis for his demonstration of the guilt of the Jews (vv.17-19).

Paul is not discussing justification by faith only here, he is discussing the principle of judgment according to deeds as it relates to the unrighteousness of the Jews (vv.17-24).
In that context, Paul's statement.
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight,
it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." (Ro 2:13),
is showing the unrighteousness of the Jews, because law-righteousness requires perfect compliance with the law, which none of them were able to perform, and therefore "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Gal 3:10)

affirming that we are justified by doing the law,

Only if we obey it perfectly, which no one can; therefore, actually no one is justified by the law (Gal 2:16), rather
all who rely on observing the law are under a curse, (Gal 3:10) which is the opposite of what you allege.

Your piecemeal, situation-driven hermeneutic of handling the God-breathed Holy Scripture as mere human literature yields heresy. . .
and I will have nothing to do with it!

The correct understanding of Ro 2:13 then puts Paul in agreement with himself below in Gal 3:21,
rather than in disagreement with himself, which you also allege.

and again in Galatians "For IF a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law."

But the law that was given could not impart life--because the sinful nature of man was unable to fulfill it perfectly--therefore,
the law imparted only death, "for the wages of sin is death" (Ro 6:23).
The problem was with the people, not with the Law (Heb 8:8).

So to strip a handful of verses of their context, declare them emphatic, and then hang an entire system on that understanding of those verses as a doctrine

Balderdash!

The only one stripping verses of their context is you, in Ro 2:13, above, without the whole Biblical context of Ro 2:1-24 and Gal 3:1-14.

is to ignore the teachings of the Bible as a whole and instead replace them with the doctrines of men. "Free grace" isn't about unmerited favor, but contrasting it with

So grace is not free. . .we have to earn it?

To "contrast" it is to strip it of its nature?
It's no contrast if you strip it of its nature as "free."

the historic teachings of a costly grace by great men of the faith like Dietrich Boenhoeffer.

I prefer "the historic teachings. . .by great men of the faith like" Paul.

 

[Fervent]

No incomplete doctrine in my Bible. . .

The incompleteness is not in your Bible, it's in your understanding.

It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate those assertions.

WRONG!

Not in the NT use of the term "justified". . .declared "not guilty," given right standing before God, a state of relationship to God.

Please provide Biblical demonstration of those assertions.

Is that what Scripture teaches?

If not, don't blame the Scriptures for the doctrine.

Their works revealing their hearts, whether they are truly converted to God or not.

Please give the locations of your quotes so that the context may be considered.

You're doing what you accuse others of doing, "forwarding" what the text, in its context, does not present
Actually, in its context (Ro 2:1-24), Paul is saying the opposite of what you allege.

The context is the principles that govern God's judgment:
1) according to truth (v.2),
2) according to deeds (vv.6-11), and
3) according to the light one has (vv.12-15),
in his demonstration of the guilt of the Jews (vv.17-19).

Paul is not discussing justification by faith only here, he is discussing the principle of judgment according to deeds as it relates to the unrighteousness of the Jews (vv.17-24), in his larger context of the unrighteousness of all mankind (1:18-3:20).
In that context, Paul's statement.
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight,
it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." (Ro 2:13),
is showing the unrighteousness of the Jews, because law-righteousness requires perfect compliance with the law, which none of them were able to perform.

Only if we obey it perfectly, which no one can; therefore, actually no one is justified by the law, which is the opposite of what you allege.

And which puts Paul in agreement with himself below in Gal 3:21,
rather than in disagreement with himself, as you allege.

But the law that was given could not impart life--because the sinful nature of man was unable to fulfill it perfectly--therefore, the law imparted only death, "for the wages of sin is death" (Ro 6:23).

Balderdash!

The only one stripping verses of their context is you, in Ro 2:13, above, without its context of Ro 2:1-24.

So grace is not free. . .we have to earn it?

To "contrast" it is to strip it of its nature?
It's no contrast if you strip it of its nature as "free."


I prefer "the historic teachings. . .by great men of the faith like" Paul.

you said it yourself, the incompleteness of the doctrine is not about what's in the Bible but in your understanding. In the systematization to the level of doctrine, it is rendered incomplete. You speak of the context of what I quoted in Romans, but you gave no textual evidence for where Paul's thought originated or where he went with it merely made an assertion about what he was teaching. In full context here is the passage:

2 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Nothing in there has anything to do with the "unrighteousness of the jews," or any idea of perfect compliance instead it is entirely about the law itself and its role in judgment, demonstrating that it is a universal thing since the Gentiles obey it in ignorance. So when Paul says "the doers of the law is justified" that is the context he's speaking to, that the Gentiles are justified by the law through their obedience to it.

I never allege Paul is in disagreement with himself, but that your insistence on a hard line between justification and sanctification puts Paul at odds with his own teachings. Obedience to the law through works of the law didn't justify because the law was not given to justify but to condemn, which Paul adds to by making clear if the intent of the law had been to make righteous then righteousness would surely come by the law.

You're not giving the "historic teachings" of Paul, but a twisted understanding that arose from 16th century polemics. If what you allege truly were the historic teachings of Paul, surely those who were in the position to best understand him through cultural proximity and direct instruction would have used that teaching when combating schismatics like the Montanists or the Donatists or other groups that focused heavily on the necessity of works as part of their theology, yet we find no such admonition until Luther tried to add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.