A serious discussion.

Dies3l said:

To Dean:

Let me ask something. If a person claimed to believe in the authortiy of Jesus, yet continued to be disbedient to Him, would you be inclined to believe that person?

Our actions always, even if imperfectly, reflect our beliefs and the object of our faith. This has been my point, and I believe that this is James' point as well.

Click to expand...

The contention of this thread was to define what does it mean to be accepted of God. Are we accepted of God thought the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ, or is it through doing works of righteousness?

Clearly, the bible says it it is thought Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Dies3l said:

We are saved by the redeeming blood of Christ, through faith. I don't see how this contradicts James at all. James just helps us to understand what genuine faith looks like.

Click to expand...

"dikaiow" (Strongs Number 1344) to make or render right or just, mid. to act with justice, Rev. 22:11; to avouch to be good and true, to vindicate, Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:29; et.al.; to set forth as good and just, Lk. 10:29; 16:15; et.al.; in N.T. to hold as guiltless, to accept as righteous, to justify, Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33; et.al.; pass. to be held acquitted, to be cleared, Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:24; 6:7; to be approved, to stand accepted, Rom. 2:13; 3:20;, 28; et.al.;

Click to expand...

Medic9903 said:

So to sum it all up, true faith produces works. We are not saved by those works, however, our faith is justified by them.

Click to expand...

Dies3l said:

but I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree about the specifics.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.
​

Click to expand...

DD2008 said:

Are you saying that James isn't inspired scripture? I've certainly never heard a Baptist especially a conservative Reformed one take that position before.

Here is what R.C. Sproul has to say about James 2:24:

"I’m convinced that we don’t really have a conflict here. What James is saying is this: If a person says he has faith, but he gives no outward evidence of that faith through righteous works, his faith will not justify him. Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox would absolutely agree with James. We are not saved by a profession of faith or by a claim to faith. That faith has to be genuine before the merit of Christ will be imputed to anybody. You can’t just say you have faith. True faith will absolutely and necessarily yield the fruits of obedience and the works of righteousness. Luther was saying that those works don’t add to that person’s justification at the judgment seat of God. But they do justify his claim to faith before the eyes of man. James is saying, not that a man is justified before God by his works, but that his claim to faith is shown to be genuine as he demonstrates the evidence of that claim of faith through his works."

I agree with him.

Here is the link: http://www.ligonier.org/questions_answered.php?question_id=27


I also believe that the book of James is part of the body of inspired inerrant infallible scriputre.

Click to expand...

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace,[91] wherein he pardoneth all our sins,[92] and accepteth us as righteous in His sight,[93] only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us,[94] and received by faith alone.[95]

[91] Romans 3:24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
[92] Romans 4:6-8. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 2 Corinthians 5:19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
[93] 2 Corinthians 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
[94] Romans 4:6, 11. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.... 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: Romans 5:19. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
[95] Galatians 2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Click to expand...

Justification has to do solely with the legal side of salvation. It is a judicial term, a word of the law courts. It is the sentence of a judge upon a person who has been brought before him for judgment. It is that gracious act of God as Judge, in the high court of Heaven, by which He pronounces an elect and believing sinner to be freed from the penalty of the law, and fully restored unto the Divine favour. It is the declaration of God that the party arraigned is fully conformed to the law; justice exonerates him because justice has been satisfied. Thus, justification is that change of status whereby one, who being guilty before God, and therefore under the condemning sentence of His Law, and deserving of nought but an eternal banishment from His presence, is received into His favour and given a right unto all the blessings which Christ has, by His perfect satisfaction, purchased for His people.

The law does not pardon, for it knows no relaxation; but God pardons the transgressions of the law in His people by providing a satisfaction to the law adequate to their transgressions. The blood of Christ was sufficient to procure pardon (Eph. 1:7), but His righteousness is needed for justification (Rom. 5:19). Pardon takes away the filthy garments, but justification provides a change of raiment (Zech. 3:4). Pardon frees from death (2 Sam. 12:13), but righteousness imputed is called "justification of life" (Rom. 5:18). The one views the believer as completely sinful, the other as completely righteous. Pardon is the remission of punishment, justification is the declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment exists. Forgiveness may be repeated unto seventy times seven, justification is once for all.

The justification of a believer is no other than his being admitted to participate in the reward merited by his Surety. Justification is nothing more or less than the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us: the negative blessing issuing therefrom is the remission of sins; the positive, a title to the heavenly inheritance.

Click to expand...

Condemnation is not the opposite either of pardon or of reformation. To condemn is to pronounce guilty or worthy of punishment. To justify is to declare not guilty, or that justice does not demand punishment, or that the person concerned cannot justly be condemned. When, therefore, the Apostle says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1), he declares that they are absolved from guilt; that the penalty of the Law cannot justly be inflicted upon them. “Who,” he asks, “shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died” (8:33, 34). Against the elect in Christ no ground of condemnation can be presented. God pronounces them just, and therefore no one can pronounce them guilty.

Click to expand...

The obedience which the Law demands is called righteousness, and those who render that obedience are called righteous. To ascribe righteousness to anyone, or to pronounce him righteous, is the Scriptural meaning of the word “to justify.”

Paul therefore warns all those who look to works for justification that they are debtors to do the whole law (Gal 5:3). It knows no compromise; it cannot demand less than what is right, and perfect obedience is right. Therefore its only language is as before, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal 3:10); and, “That the man which doeth those things shall live by them” (Rom 10:5). Every man, therefore, who expects justification by works must see to it, not that he is better than other men, or that he is very exact and does many things, or that he fasts twice in the week and gives tithes of all he possesses, but that he is sinless.

The fact that a man is forgiven implies that he is guilty, and the fact that he is guilty implies that his justification cannot rest upon his own character or conduct.

The Law knows nothing of anything but obedience as the ground of acceptance. If the Scriptures say we are accepted through faith, they thereby say that we are not accepted on the ground of obedience.

Click to expand...

He is now compelled by his God given faith to freely produce good works.

Click to expand...

Ye see then how that by works a man is made/rendered right/just, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man acts with justice, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is avouched to be good and true, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is vindicated, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is set forth as good and just, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is held as guiltless, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is accepted as righteous, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is held acquitted, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is cleared, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is approved, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is accepted, and not by faith only.

Ye see then how that by works a man is freed from the penalty and condemnation of the Law, and not by faith only.

Click to expand...

make or render right or just; act with justice; avouch to be good and true, to vindicate; set forth as good and just; hold as guiltless, to accept as righteous, to justify; held acquitted, to be cleared; be approved, to stand accepted

Click to expand...

DD2008 said:

Justification with God is by works. Christ worked out our salvation on the cross. We are now justified by his righteousness imputed to us by the grace of God and received by faith that manifests itself in good works to the glory of God.

Click to expand...

DD2008 said:

Justification with God is by works

Click to expand...

In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,..Thus it is said, in Paul's discourse in the Acts, "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 13: 38, 39.) You see that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house "justified," (Luke 18: 14,) it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works.

Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle's meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

I say, therefore, that faith, which is only the instrument for receiving justification,

Click to expand...

DD2008 said:

The root of all of our justification is by works and not by faith...Justification is by works...Justification with God is by works.

Click to expand...

Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

Click to expand...

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,

Click to expand...

Of Justification We believe that the great gospel blessing which Christ secures to such as believe in him is Justification; that Justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer's blood; by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God; that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.

Click to expand...