Are we saved by faith alone or faith plus works?

[FireDragon76]

Well Jesus said it was his Gospel so anything added would create the dichotomy. And the separation He taught of being between the Kingdom of God and the self willed world of man was the basis of the separation between God and man all throughout the Bible

It's uncontroversial on this forum, and taken as a given, that Paul preached the Gospel of Christ. Reconciling Paul and Jesus of course is not always easy, but I do not think it is impossible and certainly there is plenty of theology that attempts to do so.

 

[timothyu]

It's uncontroversial on this forum, and taken as a given, that Paul preached the Gospel of Christ.

Indeed. And I refer to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How do you reconcile the book of Romans and the Book of James?

Quite easily, actually.

Paul was referring to justification in God's eyes (perspective), while James was referring to justification in the eyes (perspective) of other people.

If both Paul and James were referring to the same perspective, then we have a problem. That the Bible is internally contradicted. I reject such a notion.

Justification in James is in the eyes of others

There is much confusion and misunderstanding of James 2:14-26. When he asked, "can that faith (without works) save?", he wasn't speaking of eternal salvation. If he were, then he would have been contradicting the rest of the Bible, esp Paul. So we need to understand what his point was in that passage. It was about hypocrisy, or rather, the need to not be a hypocrite. The example he gave in 2:15,16 very clearly describes a hypocrite; one who says one thing, but acts in a totally contrary manner.

2:18 makes the point that it is impossible to demonstrate your faith apart from works. iow, how does man "see" our faith? Since mankind isn't omniscient, we depend upon works to demonstrate our faith to others. God doesn't need to see one's faith to know it exists. But man does need to see one's faith, and that is on the basis of one's works.

James was definitely NOT saying that one needs works with faith in order to be saved. If he were, then he would be contradicting the rest of the Bible. So we have to understand that he couldn't possibly be saying that.

So, the question is: "saved from what, specifically?" Because he point was about not being a hypocrite, he wanted his readers to be saved, or delivered, or rescued from the charge of hypocrisy. Which the example clearly illustrates.

James, the Lord's half brother, was very familiar with His teachings. We know how many times He called the Pharisees hypocrites. Many. It makes sense that James was concerned that believers weren't living out their faith in front of others. That is hypocrisy, and he didn't want the believers to be branded hypocrites.

There is nothing more effective at ruining one's character or reputation than being seen as a hypocrite. James was trying to warn his readers about that. I know he never used the word, but look at all of ch 2 and 3:1-12. All of it is about hypocrisy. 2:1-13 is about how believers treated a rich man vs a poor man; favoritism is hypocrisy. 2:14-26 is about not living our your faith before others. 3:1-12 is about the hypocrisy of how believers use their tongue; in what they say, which is again, hypocrisy.

There are a number of verses that supports the idea that James was concerned about how believers live their lives before others.

Rom 12:17 - Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.

This verse specifically notes the perspective of others.

Rom 14:18 - For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

This verse directly notes how our lifestyle is acceptable/approved by God and by men.

2 Cor 5:12 - We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.

Man cannot see the heart; only God can, which is where our faith is. So, by living our our faith, we have an answer for those who take pride in appearance.

2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

This could not be more clear: in the sight of the Lord (for justification) and in the sight of men (for their approval or justification).

Col 4:5 - Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

1 Tim 3:7 - And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Clearly speaking of having a good testimony before others (outside the church-unbelievers), which avoids the charge of hypocrisy.

1 Thess 4:12 - so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.

Ditto

1 Pet 2:12 - Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Clearly Peter is emphasizing that believers who live out their faith, not being hypocrites, will have a positive effect upon unbelievers.

1 Jn 3:18 - Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

This is directly linked to James 2:15,16; the example of the believer who told people "be warmed and filled" but didn't do anything to meet their needs. He was a blatant hypocrite. iow, he "loved only with word or tongue", but definitely not "in deed and truth".

James 2 is all about how we live our lives before others. That we should demonstrate our faith before others.

 

[danbuter]

If we truly act like Jesus wants us to, we will be doing good works as part of our daily lives. It won't be an additional requirement (i.e. just because you were baptized doesn't mean you get to go to heaven if you are a horrible person to everyone).

 

[FireDragon76]

Quite easily, actually.

Paul was referring to justification in God's eyes (perspective), while James was referring to justification in the eyes (perspective) of other people.

If both Paul and James were referring to the same perspective, then we have a problem. That the Bible is internally contradicted. I reject such a notion.

Justification in James is in the eyes of others

There is much confusion and misunderstanding of James 2:14-26. When he asked, "can that faith (without works) save?", he wasn't speaking of eternal salvation. If he were, then he would have been contradicting the rest of the Bible, esp Paul. So we need to understand what his point was in that passage. It was about hypocrisy, or rather, the need to not be a hypocrite. The example he gave in 2:15,16 very clearly describes a hypocrite; one who says one thing, but acts in a totally contrary manner.

2:18 makes the point that it is impossible to demonstrate your faith apart from works. iow, how does man "see" our faith? Since mankind isn't omniscient, we depend upon works to demonstrate our faith to others. God doesn't need to see one's faith to know it exists. But man does need to see one's faith, and that is on the basis of one's works.

James was definitely NOT saying that one needs works with faith in order to be saved. If he were, then he would be contradicting the rest of the Bible. So we have to understand that he couldn't possibly be saying that.

So, the question is: "saved from what, specifically?" Because he point was about not being a hypocrite, he wanted his readers to be saved, or delivered, or rescued from the charge of hypocrisy. Which the example clearly illustrates.

James, the Lord's half brother, was very familiar with His teachings. We know how many times He called the Pharisees hypocrites. Many. It makes sense that James was concerned that believers weren't living out their faith in front of others. That is hypocrisy, and he didn't want the believers to be branded hypocrites.

There is nothing more effective at ruining one's character or reputation than being seen as a hypocrite. James was trying to warn his readers about that. I know he never used the word, but look at all of ch 2 and 3:1-12. All of it is about hypocrisy. 2:1-13 is about how believers treated a rich man vs a poor man; favoritism is hypocrisy. 2:14-26 is about not living our your faith before others. 3:1-12 is about the hypocrisy of how believers use their tongue; in what they say, which is again, hypocrisy.

There are a number of verses that supports the idea that James was concerned about how believers live their lives before others.

Rom 12:17 - Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.

This verse specifically notes the perspective of others.

Rom 14:18 - For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

This verse directly notes how our lifestyle is acceptable/approved by God and by men.

2 Cor 5:12 - We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart.

Man cannot see the heart; only God can, which is where our faith is. So, by living our our faith, we have an answer for those who take pride in appearance.

2 Cor 8:21 - for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

This could not be more clear: in the sight of the Lord (for justification) and in the sight of men (for their approval or justification).

Col 4:5 - Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

1 Tim 3:7 - And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Clearly speaking of having a good testimony before others (outside the church-unbelievers), which avoids the charge of hypocrisy.

1 Thess 4:12 - so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.

Ditto

1 Pet 2:12 - Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Clearly Peter is emphasizing that believers who live out their faith, not being hypocrites, will have a positive effect upon unbelievers.

1 Jn 3:18 - Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

This is directly linked to James 2:15,16; the example of the believer who told people "be warmed and filled" but didn't do anything to meet their needs. He was a blatant hypocrite. iow, he "loved only with word or tongue", but definitely not "in deed and truth".

James 2 is all about how we live our lives before others. That we should demonstrate our faith before others.

The Bible does indeed contain "contradictions", that is evident to anyone who seriously studies the Bible. Expecting it to be internally consistent in all ways simply isn't true to the texts.

That's why I prefer the Lutheran approach, we can admit that James reflects a perspective that cannot be proven to be apostolic, and simply recognize it for what it is, wise advice, but not Gospel. But we know that Paul was an apostle of Christ and through him we received the Gospel.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If we truly act like Jesus wants us to, we will be doing good works as part of our daily lives. It won't be an additional requirement (i.e. just because you were baptized doesn't mean you get to go to heaven if you are a horrible person to everyone).

Those who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, which is what happens when one is BORN AGAIN, WILL go to heaven. But if they remain a horrible person, their life on earth following their new birth will be one of misery, painful discipline and not only loss of blessing, but loss of eternal reward.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The Bible does indeed contain "contradictions", that is evident to anyone who seriously studies the Bible.

You can't be serious, right? By the quote marks around 'contradictions', I conclude that you don't really believe that the Bible is contradicted. Am I correct?

Expecting it to be internally consistent in all ways simply isn't true to the texts.

Uh ow. Maybe you really do believe the Bible is internally contradicted. Am I right?

That's why I prefer the Lutheran approach, we can admit that James reflects a perspective that cannot be proven to be apostolic, and simply recognize it for what it is, wise advice, but not Gospel. But we know that Paul was an apostle of Christ and through him we received the Gospel.

I prefer the Berean approach, which is totally biblical. I have no idea what the Lutheran approach is, but whatever it is, it isn't found in the Bible, as the Berean approach is. Acts 17:11.

Post #103 proves that Paul and James were speaking about different perspectives regarding justification: Paul was referring to God's perspective, while James was referring to man's perspective.

As the verses clearly show.

 

[FireDragon76]

You can't be serious, right? By the quote marks around 'contradictions', I conclude that you don't really believe that the Bible is contradicted. Am I correct?

I do not think the Bible is internally consistent on all points. This is evidenced just reading many of the narratives in the Old Testament, and the presence of varying Jahwist and Elohist accounts, such as the two accounts of creation (which differ in details), or the two accounts found buried within the story of the flood of Noah. The various synoptic gospels also contain factual contradictions.

I prefer the Berean approach, which is totally biblical. I have no idea what the Lutheran approach is, but whatever it is, it isn't found in the Bible, as the Berean approach is. Acts 17:11.

Do not speak for my church about what we supposedly believe or do not believe. We were the ones that formulated the notion of sola scriptura in the first place. Do not presume to lecture us on the nature of biblical authority.

The Bereans were considered noble because they actually studied the Scriptures. You on the other hand seem to be ignoring and glossing over the actual content of the Scriptures.

 

[timothyu]

The conflict has always been between the followers of Jesus and the followers of Paul as shown "we can admit that James reflects a perspective that cannot be proven to be apostolic, and simply recognize it for what it is, wise advice, but not Gospel. But we know that Paul was an apostle of Christ and through him we received the Gospel."

 

[FireDragon76]

The conflict has always been between the followers of Jesus and the followers of Paul as shown "we can admit that James reflects a perspective that cannot be proven to be apostolic, and simply recognize it for what it is, wise advice, but not Gospel. But we know that Paul was an apostle of Christ and through him we received the Gospel."

Paul received the Gospel from Jesus Christ, therefore we are followers of Christ.

 

[BCsenior]

The Bible does indeed contain "contradictions", that is evident to anyone who seriously studies the Bible.

Would you care to give us an example from the NT?

 

[BCsenior]

FD76, "Be a human first, then a Christian"
- Bishop Nikolai Grundtvig.

Is he, and you, joking?
Jesus called His disciples "evil" to their faces!
What more do you care to know about humans?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I do not think the Bible is internally consistent on all points.

Well, that's pretty much all I need to know about you then.

This is evidenced just reading many of the narratives in the Old Testament, and the presence of varying Jahwist and Elohist accounts

Please briefly explain what "narratives" are contradictory, and the 'presence' of varying accounts.

such as the two accounts of creation (which differ in details)

Please cite where each of these supposed 2 accounts occur so I can see if there is any supposed different in details.

or the two accounts found buried within the story of the flood of Noah.

Ditto here.

The various synoptic gospels also contain factual contradictions.

OK, then name several supposed "factual contradictions" and cite the verses.

Do not speak for my church about what we supposedly believe or do not believe.

This is what I said:
"I prefer the Berean approach, which is totally biblical. I have no idea what the Lutheran approach is, but whatever it is, it isn't found in the Bible, as the Berean approach is. Acts 17:11."

If you'd have noticed, I said I have NO IDEA what the "Lutheran approach" is.

So I didn't speak for your church.

We were the ones that formulated the notion of sola scriptura in the first place.

No, that came straight from Scripture itself.

Do not presume to lecture us on the nature of biblical authority.

And how did I do this? Certainly, it wasn't any denomination that has any such authority.

The Bereans were considered noble because they actually studied the Scriptures.

There you go. As do I.

You on the other hand seem to be ignoring and glossing over the actual content of the Scriptures.

Well, until you actually reveal some of what you seem to know, I've glossed over nothing at all.

Only after I examine what you are claiming as fact will I prove that I'm NOT ignoring anything nor glossing over anything.

But if you don't provide any evidence, then I'll know (along with anyone else who reads this thread) that your claims are unfounded.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, that's pretty much all I need to know about you then.


Please briefly explain what "narratives" are contradictory, and the 'presence' of varying accounts.

Here is a webpage explaining the story of Noah's flood, and how the Jahwist and Elohist sources differ and do not have the same details. The author of this website is a Biblical scholar:

#14. Noah is commanded to gather 7 pairs of clean animals OR only 2 of each animal? (Gen 7:2 vs Gen 6:19-20, 7:8, 7:16)#15. The flood lasts for 40 days and 40 nights OR 150 days? (Gen 7:4, 7:12, 8:6 vs Gen 7:24, 8:3)#16. The flood starts 7 days after Noah enters the ark OR on the day Noah enters the ark? (Gen 7:7, 10 vs Gen 7:11-13)#17. The flood is caused by rain OR the waters above and below the earth are unbound? (Gen 7:4, 7:12 vs Gen 7:11, 8:2)#18. Noah lets out from the ark a series of doves (three) OR a raven once? (Gen 8:8-12 vs Gen 8:7)

You could also watch this documentary. It will explain how there are actually different accounts in the Torah in a pattern that strongly suggests at least 4 different sources for the text. The material is based on the consensus of biblical scholars:

 

[Hillsage]

How do you reconcile the book of Romans and the Book of James?

Just found this thread aspie and read one page, just to assume the 'same old' 'same old' is on the next 5 pages also. If I've errored in that assumption, I'm sorry. But I'm just going to post my opinion as a drive by shooting.

IMO. Your spirit is saved by 'faith IN' and the 'work OF' Jesus. Your soul is saved by 'your faith' and 'works'.

When your spirit is justified born again/saved you have 100% of the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ and you are OSAS because you are IN Christ.

Then, your soul is 'being saved' as you withdraw His imputed righteousness and have 'imparted righteousness' added to your present soul life which is being sanctified. This is where there is the forming of Christ IN you.

Your spirit's salvation is your ticket TO heaven. The degree to which you "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" in the soul, will determine the rewards you will receive IN heaven.

It's time for other stuff, for me, Aspie.

 

[FireDragon76]

Would you care to give us an example from the NT?

There are actually too many to list. For starters, I would recommend looking up the Synoptic Problem.

This is the most obvious example:

Did Jesus Ride Two Donkeys into Jerusalem? - Stephen J. Bedard

Also, Matthew doubles the number of people involved in Jesus' miracles as compared to the other synoptic gospels, when describing the same healings. This points to a storytelling methodology that is not as concerned with facticity as modern histories would be today, and as is only mentioned in passing in the above article I linked to.

Frankly, the Gospels do not harmonize in all their details, this is just something serious scholars take for granted.

 

[timothyu]

Paul received the Gospel from Jesus Christ, therefore we are followers of Christ.

I agree. There are at least three examples in Acts where it speaks of his continual teaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only Gospel. Paul is not the problem.

 

[FireDragon76]

FD76, "Be a human first, then a Christian"
- Bishop Nikolai Grundtvig.

Is he, and you, joking?

No. Nikolai Grundtvig was a Christian humanist and a scholar, besides being a bishop in the Church of Denmark. He wrote alot of hymns in our hymnal. That is why I have his quote, because his spirituality agrees with my sentiments. Being a Christian is not a substitute for being a human being.

Jesus called His disciples "evil" to their faces!
What more do you care to know about humans?

Humans are evil relative to God's perfect goodness but they are also created in the image of God and have inherent dignity.

 

[timothyu]

Humans are evil relative to God's perfect goodness but they are also created in the image of God and have inherent dignity.

According the the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only gospel, man is prone to selfishness, being self serving and seeking gain at the expense of others. He asks us to instead emulate the Kingdom which is selflessness, in effect opposite to the default setting of humanity which is of a dual nature. Will any Christianity that rejoins the State teach against itself?

 

[FireDragon76]

According the the Gospel of the Kingdom, Jesus' only gospel, man is prone to selfishness, being self serving and seeking gain at the expense of others. He asks us to instead emulate the Kingdom which is selflessness, in effect opposite to the default setting of humanity which is of a dual nature. Will any Christianity that rejoins the State teach against itself?

What Christianity has rejoined the state? Here in the US we have separation of church and state.