So to sum it all up, true faith produces works. We are not saved by those works, however, our faith is justified by them.
but I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree about the specifics.
I disagree.
Studying just this topic, one cannot be declared "righteous" without being declared "justified". That is Paul's argument in Romans 4-8.
Twice, in Romans 3, Paul tells us that we are "justified" (
dikaiow)
by faith, without any works of the Law.
What is the Decalogue? Part of the Law.
What does it teach in the Decalogue?
Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and to love your fellow man as you love yourself. (Jesus reiterated this in the Gospels).
These are things we are
already expected to be doing.
Also, as a deacon, I have certain duties above and beyond what the ordinary Christian is expected to do. Likewise, pastors have duties above and beyond what I have to do.
This goes back to the lesson learned from Lk. 17.
"But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
When you have done those things which you are already expected to be doing in the first place, what have you done?
Nothing, as Jesus said, your "unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
You have done above and beyond what is already expected of you to be doing.
Second point, to whom do you seek justification from?
Is it in the sight of God, or of men?
And that is the point of James 2, especally 2:24.
And that was the point I was trying so hard to show from the illustration of Cain. If you do what is expected of you, will you not be accepted?
So to whom do you seek justification in the sight of? God or men?
Now I do agree that if you have true, genuine saving faith, it will produce works. "You will know them by their fruits." But here again, are you doing those things to seek justification in the sight of men of God? If your doing it just to justify yourself in the sight of men, then you have the wrong motivation. Your doing it for the wrong reasons.
Now I can give you a number of arguments against the book of James.
It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.
Warner Georg Kummel,
Introduction to the New Testament, p. 412-413.
Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter. James is numbered among the few New Testament writings in which neither Israel nor the Jews are mentioned by name. The reception of Old Testament figures (cf. James 2.21-25; 5.10-11, 17-18) and also the references to the Law in an exclusively ethical context were general practices possible anywhere within early Christianity. In contrast to the Antioch incident, the problem of Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians does not appear at all in the Letter of James. The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord's brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles. In 1.1 the author designates himself douloV qeou kai kuriou Ihsou Xristou (servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ), and in 3.1 indicates that he is an early Christian teacher. To be sure, a special position and dignity is associated with the term douloV (servant) in James 1.1., but it remains worthy of note that the author neither introduces himself as the Lord's brother nor claims the title stuloV (cf. Gal. 2.9). By including himself in the large group of early Christian teachers (cf. Acts 13.1; 1 Cor. 12.28-29), he disclaims the special authority of the Lord's brother or the three 'pillars' of the Jerusalem mother church, which were used in the Antioch conflict. In addition, James 3.1ff. presupposes an attack on the teaching office and a critical situation associated with it, which again does not correspond to the exclusive position of James the Lord's brother in the history of early Christianity.
If James the Lord's brother were the author of the Letter, then it is amazing that in James 5.10-11 it is Job and not Jesus who serves as an example of willingness to suffer. Also, the presupposed church situation and the polemic in James 2.14-26 point to a later time. The social conflicts within the community that become visible are paralleled especially in the writings of Luke, the Pastorals, and in Revelation. They are evidence of a fundamental social change that happened within the Christian community at the end of the first century. More and more wealthy people entered the church, the gulf between rich and poor church members became greater, and the debate between them grew sharper. In any case, the conflict concerning the unity of faith and works points to the post-Pauline period, as in the churches previously belonging to the Pauline mission field the unity of new being and new actions that Paul had considered self-evident came apart. The polemic of James does not fit Paul himself (see below 7.1.9), so that one must assume either that James the Lord's brother was completely ignorant of Pauline theology or that we are dealing with a debate in post-Pauline times. The deuteropaulines and 2 Peter 3.15-16 docuemnt the fact that these debates in fact took place on very different levels and with distinct emphases. If the Letter of James were to have been writen by James the Lord's brother, then it is remarkable that there is no reflection of the sharp criticism of Paul by James in the deuteropauline writings. Finally, the history of the canon speaks against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Prior to 200 CE there is no solid evidence of the literary use of James. In the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200) James is missing, just as in Tertullian, and Eusebius (HE 2.23, 24b, 25) reports of James: 'This is the story of James. He is supposed to be the author of the first of the so-called "Catholic Letters," but let it be noted that its authenticity is doubted, since not many of the Elders have referred either to it or the so-called "Letter of Jude," which likewise has been counted among the 'Catholic Letters.' Still, we are aware that these two letters, like the others, have been read aloud in most of the churches.' The Letter of James began to be generally accepted only after 200 CE, cited for the first time as Scripture in Origen (Select Ps 30.6 [PG 12.1300]). The canonical status of James continued to be disputed, however, and did not attain general acceptance as a canonical document until very late. This would be an extraordinary development if James had really been written by James the brother of the Lord and this had been known in early Christianity.
Udo Schnelle,
The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386
James shows knowledge of parenetical tradition that uses sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels: 5:12 (compare Matt 5:36-37); 1:5, 17 (compare Matt 7:7-12); 1:22 (compare Matt 7:24-27); 4:12 (compare Matt 7:1); 1:6 (compare Mark 11:23-24). There is, further, parenetical material also used in 1 Peter: Jas 1:2-3 (compare 1 Peter 1:6-7); Jas 4:1-2 (compare 1 Pet 2:11). It is not that James necessarily knows the gospels or 1 Peter, but rather that there is a Christian parenetical tradition into which sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels have been taken up, although not in the form of sayings of Jesus, and of which both James and 1 Peter make use. . .
Moral exhortation is very much the same throughout the various elements in a given culture. By the same token parenesis itself has little doctrinal concern, and James, a wholly parenetical work, has almost nothing distinctively Christian about it. Jesus Christ is mentioned only twice (1:1, 2:1), and both verses could be omitted without any harm to the flow of thought in the text. When the "coming of the Lord" is mentioned (5:7) there is nothing to denote the specifically Christian hope of the parousia; it could equally be a reference to the coming of the Lord God. "Faith" in this text is not specifically Christian faith but rather the acceptance of monotheism (2:19). These facts have led some scholars to suggest that the text is a Jewish homily lightly Christianized. But a number of features seem to speak of a Christian origin, especially the evidence of contacts with Christian parenetical tradition already noted and the discussion of "faith and works" in 2:14-26. The latter seems to presuppose an awareness of Paul's teaching in Galatians 3 and Romans 4.
Norman Perrin,
The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 255
The content of James persupposes the theology taught by Paul. Especailly the "justification" part.
And that is why I'm so dead set against churches, pastors, denominations that teach that one must work for "justification."
It is wrong. You cannot "work": "to set forth as good and just; to hold as guiltless, to accept as righteous, to justify; to be held acquitted, to be cleared; to be approved, to stand accepted" in the sight of God.
And that is exactly what James teaches!
And that is why I reject the notion that one can and is "justified" by "works."
I do not stand accepted in the sight of God by my works. I do not seek to be justified in the sight of men.
I have already been declared "righteous" and "justified" in the sight of God when I gave my life, heart, mind and soul to God!
God Bless
Till all are one.
I've certainly never heard a Baptist especially a conservative Reformed one take that position before.
I went to bed right after I wrote it. 
