Paul and James Reconciled

Clare73 said:

Paul emphatically distinguishes between the righteousness from God that is without works,
and our growth in that righteousness which involves works.

And that growth in righteousness (sanctification) can "be assumed to be automatic" only if you know nothing of the rest of Paul's revelation regarding righteousness.

It's not for us to improve on Paul's revelation regarding righteousness for the sake of protecting it from antinomianism. He's already done that in the clear distinctions he presents in his revelation.

Click to expand...

Except Paul wasn't emphatic about any such thing, which is why no one made the assertion/distinction prior to Luther and 2/3s of the modern church doesn't see a need to emphasize the point.

They where?

Kenneth Roberson said:

Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Click to expand...

Many do not like what James says in his epistle in James 1:12, James 1:21-22, James 2:17-26. Many have made many attempts at trying to ignore it's application for believers today. Some have said that the book of James is a fraud. Others have said that James was only applicable to the Jews under the Old Testament Law of Moses. Others have said that James is referring to being justified before men and not before God. Others have labeled James as a heretic. The list goes on and on of the reasons why men do not accept the plain words of James. Even Martin Luther at one time called the book of James an epistle of straw.

Many believers think that Paul was against works (i.e. Sanctification) in regards to salvation after a person is saved by God's grace through faith in Christ because of Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:9, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:2-5, Galatians 3:10-14. What many believers fail to realize is that Paul was referring to the works of the 613 Laws of Moses as a whole or package deal, and he was referring to “Works Alone Salvationism” (without God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ). Paul was referring to how we our initially and foundationally saved. Paul was concerned with the first and main aspect of salvation, which in Theology is called: “Justification” (Which is being saved by God's grace through faith in Christ - which is an aspect of salvation without the deeds of the Law because it is based on God's mercy and grace).

The Bible teaches that there is a change of the Law (Hebrews 7:12); So when Paul talks about the "Law" (generically), he is referring to the Torah, i.e. the Old Law (or the many laws given to Moses and Israel) and not the commandments given to us by Jesus Christ and His followers (i.e. the New Law or New Testament Law). All one has to do is look at the context to see that Paul was referring to the "Old Law" when he spoke generically of the "law." For if Paul ever spoke against the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine according to godliness, his own words would have condemned himself (See: 1 Timothy 6:3-4).

Paul was fighting against "Circumcision Salvationism" (Which is Law Alone Salvationism without God's grace); A certain sect of Jews were trying to deceive some Christians into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be saved. This was a heresy that was clearly addressed at the Jerusalem council (See Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, Acts of the Apostles 15:24). Paul also addressed this problem; Paul said to the Galatians that if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2), and then Paul mentions how if you seek to be justified by the Law, you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). This "law" is the Torah because circumcision is not a part of the commands given to us by Jesus and His followers.

While we are initially and ultimately saved by God's grace through faith in Christ (without the deeds of the Law or works), the Bible also teaches that works of faith also play a part in the salvation process. For both Jesus and Paul taught and or implied that works of faith play a part in eternal life.

#1. Both Jesus and Paul essentially say you can deny God by one's works.


#2. Both Jesus and Paul essentially say you need to drink of (walk in) the Spirit as a part of everlasting life.


#3. Both Jesus and Paul say that the judgment involves those being condemned or punished in the afterlife for doing evil vs. doing good leading to glory or life as a part of God's kingdom.


#4. Both Jesus and Paul taught that we have to continue to abide in the good works of the Lord or we will be cut off and or burned in the fire.


#5. Both Jesus and Peter essentially say that the fear of the Lord is a part of salvation.


#6. Both Jesus and Paul taught that laboring (food) relates to everlasting life.


#7. Both Jesus and Paul spoke of a time in the last days of where false prophets shall arise who are faithless and who do not love (i.e. they will have a form of godliness).


I write what I do with for the love of the truth.
May God's love shine upon you today.

So Paul was wrong in his teaching that we are saved apart from works?

No. This is merely a misunderstanding by many within the church on Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, and Romans 4:2-6. In these portions of Scripture, we know from the whole of His Word that:

#1. Paul was referring to Initial Salvation or the Justification Process (Which is a process of salvation that does not include works) for one is first saved by God's grace and mercy and by His work of redemption through faith without works. For when a person seeks forgiveness with the Lord for the first time, they are not saved by anything they primarily did, but they are saved by Christ's mercy, and by believing in His finished work (i.e. His death, burial and resurrection). Ephesians 2:1 says we have been quickened. Being quickened is a one time act. Ephesians 2:8 refers to this kind of salvation as a gift. Gifts are received one time. So this is referring to "Initial Salvation." Ephesians 2:10 confirms that works will then follow one being saved. These are God directed works done through the believer (Philippians 2:13). Ephesians 2:9 refers to a completely different kind of work (i.e. Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism - because these are the kind of works a man would boast in himself in doing; Unlike the work in Ephesians 2:10 which are works we are created in Christ Jesus to do by the power and working of God).

#2. Paul was referring to "Law Alone Salvationism" (Which was in most cases in reference to trying to be saved by keeping the 613 Laws of Moses and not the commands that come from Jesus and His followers). The Pharisees believed in a form of Law ALONE Salvationism that de-emphasized God's grace. We see this in the Parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14). The Pharisee did not humble himself like the Tax Collector by crying out to God in seeking forgiveness over his sins.

Also, we know that there were a certain sect of Jews who wanted Christians to be saved by first being circumcised and or by keeping the whole of the Law of Moses.

1. Acts of the Apostles 15:1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
   
   
2. Acts of the Apostles 15:5 says, But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
   
   
3. Acts of the Apostles 15:24 says, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”

This is why Paul spoke against Law and works in the way that he did in the book of Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians. He was fighting against the heresy of "Circumcision Salvationism."

1. Galatians 2:3 says, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:”
   
   
2. Galatians 5:2 says, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
   
   
3. Galatians 5:6 says, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
   
   
4. Galatians 6:15 (NLT) says, “It doesn't matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation.”
   
   
5. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 says, 18 For instance, a man who was circumcised before he became a believer should not try to reverse it. And the man who was uncircumcised when he became a believer should not be circumcised now. (NLT) 19 “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (NASB)
   
   
6. Romans 2:28-29 says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
   
   
7. Romans 3:1 says, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?”
   
   
8. Romans 4:9-12 says, ”9 “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
   
   
9. Acts of the Apostles 21:21 says, “And they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”

But make no mistake: Paul later spoke of the necessity of the Sanctification Process as a part of salvation in other verses. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God has chosen us to salvation by:


“...God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth...” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Paul says in Titus 1:16 that we can deny God by a lack of works.

Titus 2:11-12 says the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously, sober, and godly in this present world.

Paul says if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus and the doctrine of godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing (1 Timothy 6:3-4). James 4:6 says God resists the proud and he gives grace to the humble. Paul says “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1). This is supported by Paul saying in the same chapter: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” (Romans 8:13). To "live after the flesh" is to live after sin. To "mortify the deeds of the body" is to put to death sin out of one's body via by the Spirit. Paul is referring to spiritual life vs. spiritual death because he says in Romans 8:1 about the same thing in relation to the "Condemnation" (Note: To learn more about the "Condemnation" see: John 3:19-21, and take note that everyone who does evil hates the light.).


In conclusion:

In Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, and Romans 4:2-6, etc: Paul was referring to the Justification Process (Which is the 1st step in the salvation process that is without works). This process of salvation is how we are initially and ultimately saved. For if a believer happens to stumble into sin on rare occasion, they do not do a good work to offset that sin, but they go to Jesus and they confess of their sins to be forgiven of that sin (See: 1 John 2:1, and 1 John 1:9). For he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy (Proverbs 28:13). For Paul says shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Paul's answer was not that we can do so and still be saved. His answer was: "God forbid" (See: Romans 6:1-2). His answer was: "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Romans 6:16). For Paul said that works of the flesh are these: Adultery, fornication, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, etc.; Paul says that they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (See: Galatians 5:19-21). So Paul was defending the Justification Process of salvation (i.e. the 1st step in the salvation process), and James was defending the Sanctification Process in James 2:24 (i.e. the second step in the salvation process). For we are initially saved without works by God's grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Justification) when we first come to the Lord, and we are then later justified (saved) by works and not by faith alone aftwards (James 2:24) (Sanctification). For James says show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works (James 2:18). For faith without works is dead (James 2:17). But it is even more than just having works. One cannot justify sin. For without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). Most churches today preach a greasy grace or easy believism. Yet, Jesus said narrow is the way. I will choose to follow Jesus and not the popular way promoted by most churches today.

Kenneth Roberson said:

Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Click to expand...

James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Romans 4:2 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God."

The Bible speaks of different types of works and above James and Paul are speaking of two different types of works.

The type of work James speaks about are obedient works in doing God's will (James 2:21) as the obedient work in doing God's will that Abraham did in offering Issac.

In the larger context surrounding Romans 4:2 Paul is talking about the work of strict, flawless, perfect law keeping the OT law of Moses required for one to be justified. Since Abraham and David both sinned, both were 'ungodly' then they could not be justified by that OT law of Moses. Paul goes on to point out Abraham did not even live under the law of Moses (Romans 4:9-10) for Abraham was justified in uncircimcision. So neither man could not be justified by the law of Moses and its required work of flawless law keeping. Both being justified by an obedient faith.

Therefore we have:
-obedient works in obeying God's will DO justify per James
-work of flawless, perfect law keeping DO NOT justify (no Jew could keep the OT law perfectly) per Paul.


Yet Paul and James DO agree that obedient works in doing God's will DOES justify:

James 2:24 ------------by works (obeying God's will)............................justifies
Romans 6:17-18------obeyed from the heart (obeying God's will).........justifies (freed from sin)


An inspired Paul would NOT contradict himself by saying in Romans 4:2 that NO WORK OF ANY KIND justifies then say in Romans 6:17-18 that obedience to God's will justifies. Nor would two inspired Bible writers as Paul and James contradict each other.

Paul in Romans 10:3 makes a distinction between different types of works:
"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Those Jews were lost (Romans 10:1-2) because they were keeping their own traditions (establishing their own righteousness) rather than submit(obey) God's righteouness (they would not believe, not confess not obey the gospel - Romans 10:9,10,16) that does justify.

So again, all works are not the same; flawless works required of the OT law of Moses, works of merit, works of one's own righteousness will not justify while obedience to God's will does justify.

Note what Paul says in Romans 2:6 "Who (God) will render to every man according to his deeds:".
If all works were ALIKE and NO type of work at all justifies then all men would be lost. Yet works are the very basis God uses to render judgment.
Romans 2:7-11 speaks of two different types of works..those who do "well" and "worketh good" (verses 7 and 10) will have eternal life rendered to them. But those that are "contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness" and "doeth evil" (verse 8-9) will face God's wrath and indignation.

It's so obvious then that all works are not the same therefore all works cannot be just lumped together in verses as Romans 4:5 or Ephesians 2:9 and it be falsely claimed that NO WORK AT ALL justifies.

And there is no respect of persons with God when it comes to how He renders judgement (verse 11).

Jesus is YHWH said:

I believe the Paul vs James is a man-made human argument. Nothing from scripture declares there was any dispute between them regarding the gospel.

Click to expand...

The dispute was probably between the Vatican and Luther, with the Vatican using James to counter Luther's use of Romans.

IMHO they are saying the same thing in different ways.

Ephesians 2:8-10 says we are saved by grace through faith. That faith results in good works-, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them

James says faith without works is dead, a dead faith. This is true and Jesus also said a good tree produces good fruit. A real living faith produces good works/fruit. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. This Paul says emphatically in Galatians 5:22-23 with the fruit of the spirit. And he said in the previous verses those who live in the deeds of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

hope this helps !!!

Click to expand...

Kenneth Roberson said:

Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

Click to expand...

Okay. . .

Well, your (2) could use a little qualifying.

The new Jewish Christians in the heavily Jewish provinces of Syria and Cilicia, of which Antioch was the main city, were particularly repulsed in their NT church associations with the Gentile Christians who ate food from the market place that had been offered to idols, married their kindred, and ate strangled meat with blood not properly drained from it. For the sake of the relationship between the two groups, the Gentiles in those provinces were to refrain from these practices at that time.
That this is not New Covenant law, but rather a temporary accommodation to those with weak consciences (1Co 8:7, 12) is seen in Ac 10:11-16, as well as Paul's statements in 1Co 8:4-6, 8; 1Tim 4:3-4.

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should qualify "law" to mean the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations only, because Christians are not "free" to violate the Mosaic Decalogue (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8-10).

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of

Click to expand...

Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to

Click to expand...

the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself) (Gal. 3:24-25),

Click to expand...

Again, clarification is needed here of "law" as the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations only, because Christians are not "free" to violate the Mosaic Decalogue (Mt 22:37-40; Ro 13:8-10).

And in light of the Decalogue not being transitional, and the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations being terminated, there is really no Mosaic law that was transitional in the life of the Jewish Christian.
There was the special temporary accommodation of the Jewish Christians, in a letter addressed only to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia--of which Antioch was the leading city--regarding food, marriage and eating blood.

and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Click to expand...

Since the Decalogue is never transitional, and the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations were terminated with the death of Christ about 20 years prior to James' letter stating "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" (Jas 2:24), there could be no agreement by James that his doctrine "was transitional (like the law itself)" because no part of the Mosaic law was ever transitional--it was either permanent or terminated.

Clare73 said:

Post #60
Paul emphatically distinguishes between the righteousness from God that is without works, and our growth in that righteousness which involves works.
And that growth in righteousness (sanctification) can "be assumed to be automatic" only if you know nothing of the rest of Paul's revelation regarding righteousness.

It's not for us to improve on Paul's revelation regarding righteousness for the sake of protecting it from antinomianism. He's already done that in the clear distinctions he presents in his revelation.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

Except Paul wasn't emphatic about any such thing, which is why no one made the assertion/distinction prior to Luther and 2/3s of the modern church doesn't see a need to emphasize the point.

Click to expand...

1) Righteousness from God that is without works:

Ac 13:38 (Paul) - Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Ro 1:17 - For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith' " (Hab 2:4)

Ro 3:21-22 - But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known. . .This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Ro 3:28 - We maintain that a man is justified (declared righteous) by faith apart from observing the law.

Ro 4:5 - However, to the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Ro 6:14 - you are not under law, but under grace.

Gal 2:16 - know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:10 - All you rely on observing the law are under a curse.

Gal 3:11-12 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because 'The righteous will live by faith,' and the law is not based on faith. On the contrary, the man who does these things will live by them." (Lev 18:5)

Eph 2:9 - you have been saved, through faith. . .not by works, so that no one can boast.

2) Growth in that righteousness which involves works:

Ro 3:31 - Do we, then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather we uphold the law. (in the obedience of sanctification)

Ro 6:1 - Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!

Ro 6:12 - Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness desires.

Ro 6:19 - Just as you used to offer the parts of your body. . .to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them. . .to righteousness, leading to holiness.

Ro 6:22 - Now that you have become slaves to God (in obedience), the benefit you reap is holiness.

Ro 7:12 - So then the law is holy, righteous and good.

Ro 13:8-10 - Love does not violate the law.

See 1Co:chp 5.

Clare73 said:

Ro 1:17 - For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith' " (Hab 2:4)

Ro 3:21-22 - But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known. . .This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Ro 3:28 - We maintain that a man is justified (righteousness) by faith apart from observing the law.

Gal 2:16 - know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:11-12 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because 'The righteous will live by faith,' and the law is not based on faith. On the contrary, the man who does these things will live by them." (Lev 18:5)

Eph 2:9 - you have been saved, through faith. . .not by works, so that no one can boast.

Click to expand...

Each of these has to be understood within the context of the letters they're found in with the occasion for writing being fully understood. Paul was emphatic with the Galatians because false teachers had come in trying to place them back under the law, in Romans the question of righteousness is part of a larger argument(exactly what that argument is is debateable, but the statements are made for a larger purpose not simply to prove that point). Ephesians is a little more difficult to distinguish the purpose of writing, but the statements are not particularly emphatic and are made to address a specific problem. By the same token we could say that Paul is particularly legalistic if we base our assessment on single statements, such as if we were drawing from 1 Corinthians.

My two cents on this is that Paul was talking to a different audience than was James, with a different set of social and cultural contexts.

So, even though Paul and James do come at the Law/Gospel relation a little differently, they're aren't essentially at odds with each other.

[I do so love shorter answers, when possible.] ** sigh **

Each of these has to be understood within the context of the letters they're found in with the occasion for writing being fully understood. Paul was emphatic with the Galatians

Click to expand...

So Paul was emphatic in Galatians. . .and not just in Galatians.
Ro 4:5 is quite emphatic. . .with God justifying the wicked!

Nor do the contexts alter the teaching of the verses presented.

because false teachers had come in trying to place them back under the law, in Romans the question of righteousness is part of a larger argument(exactly what that argument is is debateable, but
the statements are made for a larger purpose not simply to prove that point).

Click to expand...

And that purpose does not alter the teaching of the verse.

Ephesians is a little more difficult to distinguish the purpose of writing, but the
statements are not particularly emphatic and are made to address a specific problem.

Click to expand...

Which does not alter the teaching of those verses.

By the same token we could say that Paul is particularly legalistic if we base our assessment on single statements, such as if we were drawing from 1 Corinthians.

Click to expand...

Obedience to God's word is not legalistic, it's the means of sanctification.

2PhiloVoid said:

My two cents on this is that Paul was talking to a different audience than was James, with a different set of social and cultural contexts.

So, even though Paul and James do come at the Law/Gospel relation a little differently, they're aren't essentially at odds with each other.

[I do so love shorter answers, when possible.] ** sigh **

Click to expand...

Then you won't be a fan of Paul.

Ad hominum.

Clare73 said:

So Paul was emphatic. . .

Click to expand...

Not particularly, with the exception of Galatians where the emphasis is in combating the false teaching. There is no particular emphasis on the theology, the theology is used to make an argument. In Romans the fact that righteousness comes apart from the law is used to highlight that the Jews were not more holy than the gentiles. Paul wrote 13 or 14 epistles. 3 of them contain references to the righteousness apart from the law, with the majority of them focusing on the need for practical holiness.

Clare73 said:

Nor do the contexts alter the teaching of the verses presented.

Click to expand...

The contexts explain the use of the theology. Paul is not arguing for that theology, but presenting the theological fact as a means of addressing something that was an issue within the church. There is no special emphasis on that aspect of theology.

Clare73 said:

And that purpose does not alter the teaching of the verse.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the theology, but your claim that Paul made a special point of it. It wasn't until Luther made it a major cornerstone of his theology that anyone paid particular attention to it.

Clare73 said:

Which does not alter the teaching of those verses.

Click to expand...

Not being emphatic makes them not emphatic, altering your use of those verses to try to demonstrate a claim that such theology was something Paul was particularly emphatic about.

Clare73 said:

Obedience to God's word is not legalistic, it's the means of sanctification.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the point is you're fixating on a couple of epistles and trying to have them run roughshod not only over what other writers have written but what Paul himself wrote. A handful of verses that speak to a topic in no way demonstrate any sort of emphasis, especially when so much material is dedicated to statements that can be viewed as contrary to the theology being presented based on those statements.

Clare73 said:

Then you won't be a fan of Paul.
.

Click to expand...

Actually, I am a big fan of Paul, and I have been for about 34 years.

Not particularly, with the exception of Galatians where the emphasis is in combating the false teaching. There is no particular emphasis on the theology, the theology is used to make an argument. In Romans the fact that righteousness comes apart from the law is used to highlight that the Jews were not more holy than the gentiles. Paul wrote 13 or 14 epistles. 3 of them contain references to the righteousness apart from the law, with the majority of them focusing on the need for practical holiness.

The contexts explain the use of the theology. Paul is not arguing for that theology, but presenting the theological fact as a means of addressing something that was an issue within the church. There is no special emphasis on that aspect of theology.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the theology, but your claim that Paul made a special point of it. It wasn't until Luther made it a major cornerstone of his theology that anyone paid particular attention to it.

Not being emphatic makes them not emphatic, altering your use of those verses to try to demonstrate a claim that such theology was something Paul was particularly emphatic about.

Click to expand...

And in what universe does emphatic or non-emphatic alter the truth of it, which is the only issue in a contention of Paul's theology.

What a bogus hermeneutic!

Sure, but the point is you're fixating on a couple of epistles and
trying to have them run roughshod not only over what other writers have written but what Paul himself wrote.

Click to expand...

So the Word of God contradicts itself among its writers, therefore, we must not let any one of them run roughshod over the others. . .all contradictions get a shot at the truth?

A handful of verses that speak to a topic in no way demonstrate any sort of emphasis, especially when so much material is dedicated to statements that can be viewed as contrary to the theology being presented based on those statements.

Click to expand...

I note the "viewed as" in lieu of "Biblically demonstrated to be" contrary to the theology based on those statements.
So the issue is, not that the teaching of the verses is untrue, but that their teaching is not that important.

And this is your absurd hermeneutic!

AMAZING! If you can't unseat it, just try then to discredit its importance.

Well, the importance to Paul of his gospel of salvation/justification by faith apart from observing the law is seen in his anathematizing (cursing) anyone who would alter that teaching in any way.

If an anathema! doesn't show the importance of that teaching to Paul, then I can't imagine what would.
What other teaching of Paul carries the emphasis of an anathema!?

Sorry. . .Paul is not in agreement with your absurd hermeneutic regarding the relative importance of justification/salvation
by faith apart from observing the law.

Clare73 said:

So the issue is, not that the teaching of the verses is untrue, but that their teaching is not that important.

Amazing! If you can't unseat it, just try then to discredit its importance.

Well, the importance to Paul of his gospel of salvation/justification by faith apart from observing the law is seen in his anathematizing (cursing) anyone who would alter that teaching in any way.

If an anathema! doesn't show the importance of that teaching to Paul, then I can't imagine what would.
What other teaching of Paul carries the emphasis of an anathema!?

Sorry. . .Paul is not in agreement with you regarding the relative importance of justification/salvation by faith apart from observing the law.

Click to expand...

That's a complete twisting of what I have said. The teaching that there is a hard line between justification and sanctification is a distortion of the actual case based on a misreading of Paul. Paul's theology is far more complex than being able to be boiled down to simple little catch phrases and hanging an entire earth-shattering doctrine on a handful of verses is a complete abuse.

Separating the two of them out is useful to combat specific misunderstandings, but treating them entirely as separate creates problems of its own. If Paul actually taught such a separation, with emphasis, the church would have caught it long before Luther. Yet no one suspected such a separation, it was never used to combat the Montanists or the Donatists who both taught a heavily holiness focused salvation. There is no special emphasis in Paul on the doctrine, and it only came to be specially emphasized by the reformers, partly as an appropriate polemic against a church that had gone off the rails yet it has transformed into a problem in itself.

Clare73 said:

So the issue is, not that the teaching of the verses is untrue, but that their teaching is not that important.

Amazing! If you can't unseat it, just try then to discredit its importance.

Well, the importance to Paul of his gospel of salvation/justification by faith apart from observing the law is seen in his anathematizing (cursing) anyone who would alter that teaching in any way.

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

If an anathema! doesn't show the importance of that teaching to Paul, then I can't imagine what would.
What other teaching of Paul carries the emphasis of an anathema!?

Sorry. . .Paul is not in agreement with you regarding the relative importance of
justification/salvation by faith apart from observing the law.

Click to expand...

That's a complete twisting of what I have said. The teaching that there is a hard line between justification and sanctification is a distortion of the actual case based on a misreading of Paul.

Click to expand...

Non-responsive to Paul's emphatic anathema!

Irrelevant to the issue of justification by works + faith being an eradication of the gospel of free grace.

Still discrediting the importance of the difference between faith without works for justification and works + faith for justification, Jesus thereby leaving us an unfinished, incomplete, inadequate atonement, requiring sinful man's addition to the holy work of the divine Son of God to make it actually effective.
Poor Jesus. . .his arm was too short.

Could one minimize the gospel of free grace any more than in
Paul's theology being "far more complex than being able to be boiled down to simple little catch phrases and hanging an entire earth-shattering doctrine on a handful of verses is a complete abuse"?

So how many times does Scripture have to state it before it is true?

Complete balderdash! . .arrogance. . .and culpable ignorance of the gospel of free grace.

Your God is too small, your doctrine is too weak, and your understanding of the gospel is nil, if not just plain pathetic.

Separating the two of them out is useful to combat specific misunderstandings, but treating them entirely as separate creates problems of its own. If Paul actually taught such a separation, with emphasis, the church would have caught it long before Luther.

Click to expand...

That's the point! . . .They didn't!
Actually I think they saw it, but the early church in Jerusalem was too influenced by the Judaizing Pharisees (Ac 15:4-5) to receive it, and that wasn't corrected until the Catholic monk, Luther, corrected it.

Yet no one suspected such a separation,

Click to expand...

Or rather, the Judaizing Pharisees in the church in Jerusalem didn't allow such a separation.

it was never used to combat the Montanists or the Donatists who both taught a heavily holiness focused salvation.

There is no special emphasis in Paul on the doctrine,

Click to expand...

Yeah, right. . .
no special emphasis other than an anathema! to those who disagree with it;
no special emphasis other than the equivalent of 2 whole chapters in Romans
and 2 chapters in Galatians.

More balderdash!

So what's your invested interest in justification requiring works?

and it only came to be specially emphasized by the reformers, partly as an appropriate polemic against a church that had gone off the rails yet it has transformed into a problem in itself.

Click to expand...

Like the problem of believing one has to earn heaven?

Clare73 said:

Non-responsive to Paul's emphatic anathema!

Irrelevant to the issue of justification by works + faith being an eradication of the gospel of free grace.

Still discrediting the importance of the difference between faith without works for justification and works + faith for justification, Jesus thereby leaving us an unfinished, incomplete, inadequate atonement, requiring sinful man's addition to the holy work of the divine Son of God to make it actually effective.
Poor Jesus. . .his arm was too short.

Could one minimize the gospel of free grace any more than in
Paul's theology being "far more complex than being able to be boiled down to simple little catch phrases and hanging an entire earth-shattering doctrine on a handful of verses is a complete abuse"?

Complete balderdash! . .arrogance. . .and culpable ignorance of the gospel of free grace.

Your God is too small, your doctrine is too weak, and your understanding of the gospel is nil, if not just plain pathetic.

And just what is this perceived problem

Click to expand...

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.

Clare73 said:

Non-responsive to Paul's emphatic anathema!

Irrelevant to the issue of justification by works + faith being an eradication of the gospel of free grace.

Still discrediting the importance of the difference between faith without works for justification and works + faith for justification, Jesus thereby leaving us an unfinished, incomplete, inadequate atonement, requiring sinful man's addition to the holy work of the divine Son of God to make it actually effective.
Poor Jesus. . .his arm was too short.

Could one minimize the gospel of free grace any more than in
Paul's theology being "far more complex than being able to be boiled down to simple little catch phrases and hanging an entire earth-shattering doctrine on a handful of verses is a complete abuse"?

Complete balderdash! . .arrogance. . .and culpable ignorance of the gospel of free grace.

Your God is too small, your doctrine is too weak, and your understanding of the gospel is nil, if not just plain pathetic.

And just what is this perceived problem

Click to expand...

So, which book on New Testament Hermeneutics are you using as a reference?

2PhiloVoid said:

So, which book on New Testament Hermeneutics are you using as a reference?

Click to expand...

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

Ad hominum. . .again.
.