"a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (in James 2:24)

[com7fy8]

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

What does James mean?

I consider and offer the examples of works, which he gives in the same chapter.

But what does it mean, that we are "justified" by such works?

 

[amariselle]

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

What does James mean?

I consider and offer the examples of works, which he gives in the same chapter.

But what does it mean, that we are "justified" by such works?

Our works "justify" us because they are evidence of our faith.

 

[Albion]

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

What does James mean?

He means that when someone claims to be a disciple of Christ, it's a matter of "put up or shut up." You can't be a believer and not have it show in your lifestyle.

 

[com7fy8]

Oh-h-h-h . . . so you two possibly are saying, that "justified", in this case, has nothing to do with causing a change in us, but here it is talking about how both faith and works can be evidence that we believe and both can show in our lifestyle.

A same word, in scripture can have very different meanings and applications.

 

[Albion]

Oh-h-h-h . . . so you two possibly are saying, that "justified", in this case, has nothing to do with causing a change in us....same word...different meanings and applications.

I'm not sure that I follow you there. The same idea is reiterated in 1 John 2:4

 

[amariselle]

Oh-h-h-h . . . so you two possibly are saying, that "justified", in this case, has nothing to do with causing a change in us, but here it is talking about how both faith and works can be evidence that we believe and both can show in our lifestyle.

A same word, in scripture can have very different meanings and applications.

Actually, works are evidence that there has been a change in us, and these works flow out of a real and living faith.

 

[swordsman1]

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

What does James mean?

I consider and offer the examples of works, which he gives in the same chapter.

But what does it mean, that we are "justified" by such works?

I think if you place an emphasis on the first two words "You see..." the meaning of the verse becomes clearer. When James says "You see..." it is not the explanatory colloquialism we use today eg "You see, Harry’s coming this afternoon, so I can’t come". Rather the seeing is to be taken more literally. It is the evidence to be observed. You can SEE that a man is justified. How? By works and not by faith alone. The evidence that a man is justified is not just the faith he professes, but also the works he does.

If the meaning was simply "a man is justified by works, and not by faith" it would contradict scripture in multiple places elsewhere.

 

[Job8]

A same word, in scripture can have very different meanings and applications.

James was not trying to contradict Paul regarding justification by grace through faith. The context makes it clear that for other people to recognize that we are justified by grace there must be some external evidence. So in effect, in the eyes of others we are justified by our works, since only God sees the hearts of men.

 

[Erose]

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

What does James mean?

I consider and offer the examples of works, which he gives in the same chapter.

But what does it mean, that we are "justified" by such works?

Actually James is correcting some Christians that took the teachings of St Paul too far. There is no contradiction, between the two at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyjimmy]

He means that when someone claims to be a disciple of Christ, it's a matter of "put up or shut up." You can't be a believer and not have it show in your lifestyle.

Would church/denominational practice count?

 

[Albion]

If I understand your question, most people would probably say "no," but fasting in Lent, not missing worship services each Sunday, and so on are popularly believed -- by members of those churches which believe in Faith + Works -- to be meritorious, just as much as assisting the poor without being asked, etc.

 

[Erose]

Our works "justify" us because they are evidence of our faith.

That's really the wrong way to look at it. Works are, or should be, a response to our faith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amariselle]

Yes,

That's really the wrong way to look at it. Works are, or should be, a response to our faith.

Yes, exactly....works are a response that occurs when we have real faith, therefore such works are "evidence" that true faith is present in our lives.

I think we're actually saying the same thing....

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If I understand your question, most people would probably say "no," but fasting in Lent, not missing worship services each Sunday, and so on are popularly believed -- by members of those churches which believe in Faith + Works -- to be meritorious, just as much as assisting the poor without being asked, etc.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

You said, ". . .when someone claims to be a disciple of Christ, it's a matter of "put up or shut up." You can't be a believer and not have it show in your lifestyle."

If that is the case, which I agree it is, could it not also be said that your churches policy on SSM and ordination of women matter too?

 

[Albion]

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

You said, ". . .when someone claims to be a disciple of Christ, it's a matter of "put up or shut up." You can't be a believer and not have it show in your lifestyle."

If that is the case, which I agree it is, could it not also be said that your churches policy on SSM and ordination of women matter too?

Oh, sure. It does matter. James was, however, addressing the status of the individual in the verse we were looking at. If you were taking that into account, am I right to think that you're asking about the morality of belonging to a heretical church body??

 

[Greg J.]

Sometimes this passage is easier to understand if one starts with the idea that James is trying to describe the differing qualities between two kinds of faith. He calls the kind that does not save "dead faith."

The most difficult verse to deal with is James 2:24.

The bottom line is that salvation is through a certain heart condition (that pushes or drives one to act). Note that genuine full faith we have in anything also drives us to act.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If you were taking that into account, am I right to think that you're asking about the morality of belonging to a heretical church body??

Yes. You are. Being a member of an apostate church, or one that is well on its way to being so so say something about one's faith, I would say.

 

[Albion]

Yes. You are. Being a member of an apostate church, or one that is well on its way to being so so say something about one's faith, I would say.

OK, can you flesh that thought out for me a little? What church or churches do you have in mind, and what's the line between a church being wrong on something not essential to the faith and OTOH "apostate"? How do we judge being "on it's way?" I'd think that these differences would be considered important by us both. That's not to say that I don't think continuing to hold membership in a heretical church is not a serious matter, if only because you are making a public witness by that membership.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

OK, can you flesh that thought out for me a little? What church or churches do you have in mind, and what's the line between a church being wrong on something not essential to the faith and OTOH "apostate"? How do we judge being "on it's way?" I'd think that these differences would be considered important by us both. That's not to say that I don't think continuing to hold membership in a heretical church is not a serious matter, if only because you are making a public witness by that membership.

I'm not sure of where all of the boundaries are. I was just throwing it out there for discussion and as an add-on to your comment, which addressed the personal side.

My bottom line for a church which has gone off the rails is ordination of women. That one shakes at foundational truths, both biblical and created order. . . Once one has crossed that line they have demonstrated, IMO, that they, not God, are the ultimate authority, which is the essence of sin.

I don't want to be guilty of derailing the thread too severely, so. . .

 

[Albion]

Thanks for the clarification. This is a worthwhile issue but tricky, IMHO. We both have taken our stand not to hold membership in church bodies that have, in our view, gone too far; but where exactly to draw the line is a hard one to answer, it seems to me. I have some sympathy for those who say that they're trying to get their churches to come back to the straight and narrow--even when I know in my heart that they're whistling past the graveyard and it almost never happens. But it has happened at times, so... OTOH, there are other departures from the faith that seem so serious that they can't or ought not to be tolerated one day longer.