Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,170
9,958
The Void!
✟1,131,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Maybe some of you will pick this up without flagging you by quotes.

A few observations re: James & Paul - some from Scripture:

1. From the information I have James was written before Paul. Many of these letters were circulated. Paul & James knew one another and I'm sure we don't know all they discussed, and its likely their discussions were theologically in-depth. IOW, their writings are not disconnected.

2. As his letter begins, James wrote to scattered Jewish "brethren" re: testing. When he deals with the faith + works issue, he's talking to Christian brothers. When he recalls Abraham, he recalls Abraham's test from Gen22 and he says Abraham was justified/deemed righteous by faith + works and not by faith alone.

Question: Does God deem one of His Children righteous when they pass a test?

Furthermore, James says re: Abraham's Gen22 test:

a. Abraham's faith was perfected/completed by his works when he offered-up Isaac
b. Abraham' credited righteousness from faith (Gen15:6) was fulfilled
c. He was called God's friend - Jesus had said: NKJ John 15:14-15 "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Questions:

a. Does God expect our Faith to be completed by our works and thus tests us after our initial justification and deem us righteous when we succeed in a test?
b. Does this success in a test of our faith fulfill His having credited us righteousness when we first believed what he requires us to believe?
c. Does anyone desire to be God's friend by doing what He commands and passing His tests of our faith?
3. When Paul quoted the Abraham event from Gen15:6, after discussing justification from faith, he begins in Rom4 with this:

NKJ Romans 4:1-3 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (Gen15:6)

a. Paul begins 4:2 with a 1st class condition. He's essentially saying, "lets assume for the sake of argument that Abraham was justified by works," but he has nothing to boast about toward God. The reason for this was God had credited his faith with righteousness. Has Paul just addressed James' justification via faith + works in testing to clear up any misunderstanding re: initial justification via faith w/o works?
Paul will go on to speak of Abraham's history from Gen13 when God called him and through and including his belief in God's promises through Gen22.

But Paul's main focus is how God credits righteousness to and justifies people who turn to him from unbelief. IOW this is an initial justification/being deemed righteous by God when an unbeliever first believes. And Paul will pick up through Abraham that this is for all peoples, not just the circumcised, because Abraham was not circumcised prior to his faith-righteousness.​
4. Paul again uses Abraham and Gen15:6 in Gal3 to speak similarly to his points in Rom4. He says Christians "began" in the Spirit not from works of law (another topic) but from a message of faith just as Abraham had. And this is pre-Mosaic Law so why are the Galatians considering turning back to Law?

The initial point I'm addressing is about "justification." We have tended to get so technical with our terminology that we're putting ourselves into a theological box.

For example: Some see Salvation as a once for all event and some see it as a process. Some describe Salvation as Justification > Sanctification > Glorification. Box created > James doesn't make sense.

These terms are used in different ways in our Text (which I hope never to have to put out by the curb). Is it more accurate to say (just in one example): Justification > Justifications > Glorification?

Thoughts appreciated.

Those are all good points to consider, and I'm all about thinking outside of the box (if God permits). ;)

What I think is interesting in the alleged conflict between Paul and James is that James not only focuses upon a more extensive frame of Abraham's life than Paul does, but what James then brings in to demonstrate Abraham's "completion of faith" isn't formally a part of the Law---in fact, its an enigmatic instance involving an act that is not only outside of the Law, but also against the Law.

In sum, James focuses upon Abraham's obedience to God in the attempt to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice (shadows of 1st born devotion to the Lord?), but Paul focuses upon actual signs of the Law and the Covenant, like Circumcision [see Galatians]. James doesn't bring up circumcision ... and we have to wonder why he doesn't if, indeed, he was attempting to counter any kind of theology that would have taken the shape of Paul's.

Just some thoughts for everyone to think about as we whisk around within the Hermeneutical Spiral ...

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I couldn't agree more.
And everyone would have a different opinion about which tracks are better. (or worse)

Saint Steven said:
From my perspective, I don't think God chose a single track to run his church on. He is not limited that way. The Church formed by succession fulfills an important function in the body of Christ. But not the only function. God has worked through other means and created other "tracks" to run his church on.
I don't know if God has created all of the tracks. I think much of that is us.

I'm accepting of different tracks in some aspects but not in others. I don't think there can be different doctrinal tracks. If something is true in one track it should also be true in the other tracks. I do think there can be different intellectual paths if they come to the same doctrines. Think here the Benedictine approach vs the Dominican approach. Diversity here is good. I do think there can be different spiritualities, Think here Benedictine vs Jesuit, or Maronite vs Melkite. Or think Anglican Ordinariate vs Latin Mass. And of course there can be different cultural ways of being Christian, presuming a culture is redeemable in Christ.

As to governance, I think apostolic succession is going to be needed. That and doctrinal concordance. And here I think the distinction of rite may actually be helpful. Within the various rites of the Catholic Church there are variations in how they function. Some may be more synodal. Some may be more patriarchal. Some propose their own bishops subject to approval from the pope. Others wait for the pope's choice. Point is that there is a variety possible.

Regaining apostolic succession universally would take a while. Doctrinal matters would have to be solved first, and we are miles and miles from that. We may never get there. But once we do it is as simple as agreeing on candidates and having bishops in recognized succession consecrate the new leaders. That would take one generation. But it would be the generation after doctrinal agreement was hammered out. And that is what I don't think we will ever be able to do.

In the mean time Catholics accept Orthodox baptisms and almost every Protestant baptism. We do recognize you guys as Christians. Every evangelical is recognized as a Christian by the Catholic Church. All we have to do is get the evangelicals to accept each other's baptisms and broaden that out a bit and we are able to begin. It won't be easy and I am a pessimist on that sort of thing.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I misunderstood, I guess. Your quote says "the denominations". I was informed decades ago by a Catholic that only Protestantism has denominations. (that Catholicism is NOT a denomination) Denominations are outside the Church. (capital C) Thus my confusion. So, I thought "the denominations" meant the whole body of Christ, which Protestants recognize as the universal church.
Yup. We insist we are not a denomination. We don't think of the Orthodox as a denomination either. Denominations of coins are interchangeable. Five pennies equals a nickel, and so on. That means the real differences can be ignored, which doesn't seem right if there are real differences. So if you want to yank the chain of a Catholic try referring to the 'Catholic denomination'. Your discussions may become very brief.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟105,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Those are all good points to consider, and I'm all about thinking outside of the box (if God permits).

I'd be interested in your post-considered thoughts re: "justification." Is there really just one as many to most say? Or does it look like there are at least 2 per Paul & James?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'll choose to differ with you on this point, and hopefully for good reason.

Though we may have preferences for which "tracks" we think are better or worse, I think our heavenly Father is less concerned with that and more concerned with our relationship with him. He meets us where we are. Only a parent can love a child with a full ripe diaper and a face full of snot. Being a parent is a messy business. I think it is no different for our heavenly parent. He loves ALL his children and cares for them.

There is no reason to be disappointed with the child who has a full diaper and a face full of snot. This is to be expected. Again, He meets us where we are. The only minimum requirement I am aware of is this.

John 4:22-24
You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
Yes, 'tracks' do differ from relationships with the Lord. Some tracks will get in the way of that, some may enhance that, and some have little effect. We are not upset with a child with a dirty diaper. We are more frustrated with a capable adult who simply will not do what is required.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,170
9,958
The Void!
✟1,131,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'd be interested in your post-considered thoughts re: "justification." Is there really just one as many to most say? Or does it look like there are at least 2 per Paul & James?

I'm sorry, GDL, but at the moment I'm wearing my dunce hat and I'm not sure I quite understand your questions. Would you please rephrase them and I'll be happy to give a shot at offering my two cents.

Thanks, bro! :cool:
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟105,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
the alleged conflict between Paul and James

Nicely worded.

James not only focuses upon a more extensive frame of Abraham's life than Paul does

Actually, I see it the other way around or possibly both being very similar to the same. Granted I'm looking at inferences in both.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
That pretty much captures my thoughts on the subject. Here's the scriptural defense if anyone is interested. Basically, everyone is already saved. Most don't know it yet.
One could hope that, I guess. One theologian I actually respect quite a bit, Hans Urs von Balthasar, would agree with you. But I am much more of a pessimist in that regard. I know too much of the inclinations of my own bent and damaged soul I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,170
9,958
The Void!
✟1,131,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, I see it the other way around or possibly both being very similar to the same. Granted I'm looking at inferences in both.

That's alright if you do. I'm just shooting from the hip in saying that nowhere that I know of does Paul talk about Isaac's near demise in relation to Abraham's faith (unless we go ahead and maybe assume that Hebrews really was written by Paul ... but even then, the writer of Hebrews barely makes a glancing blow past Isaac and Abraham in relation to what James says).

So, with this in mind, I tend not to think that Paul and James are deadlocked with bazookas trained upon each other's theological fortresses.

But, I could be wrong. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
We also need to hone in on exactly what the focus is for this thread? Is it the disagreement between both MacArthur and Hanegraaf, or is it something else? So far, all I've seen folks do in this thread is vie in piecemeal fashion for their own favorite interpretive position (or denomination).
I've taken it one way and everybody else has taken it their way too. It's a bewildering thread. A more or less civil one, but quite wild.
ok. That's a nice quote. The only thing is, it doesn't tell us "how" and by what "hermeneutical" method each group arrived at their respective interpretations and doctrinal conclusions.
I wonder if it isn't mostly Schaff being Schaff. I've spend hundreds of hours with the Fathers and universalism seems mostly derived in one way or another from Origen.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
... the alleged conflict between Paul and James ...
I'm going to apply a form of canonical criticism here and state that the 'conflict' if it were an actual conflict, would have resulted in one of the two documents not being included in the Bible as canon. Since both are included there is a way of resolving them without contradiction. The Church knew how to do it when both books were included in the canon.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,170
9,958
The Void!
✟1,131,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm going to apply a form of canonical criticism here and state that the 'conflict' if it were an actual conflict, would have resulted in one of the two documents not being included in the Bible as canon. Since both are included there is a way of resolving them without contradiction. The Church knew how to do it when both books were included in the canon.

Yep. And for sure, I can't deny that. So, I don't.

... but as we know, Luther had a different take on all of this, apparently, and Europe was never to be the same again after that. ;)
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,280
16,124
Flyoverland
✟1,235,059.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Yep. And for sure, I can't deny that. So, I don't.

... but as we know, Luther had a different take on all of this, apparently, and Europe was never to be the same again after that. ;)
It is an unnecessary war.

And Hannagraff actually got it right. Or close to right.

I think some people need the courage of their convictions to actually tear the book of James from their Bibles. Luther didn't do it because Melanchthon didn't allow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,170
9,958
The Void!
✟1,131,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is an unnecessary war.
Religious war usually is.

And Hannagraff actually got it right. Or close to right.
That could be. At the moment, I'm not familiar enough with the "New Hanegraaff" as opposed to the old one. I take it in the chin that his personal suffering and humanity has something to do with his change of denominational direction. [Sorry, I couldn't get away from using the 'D word' here.] ;)

I think some people need the courage of their convictions to actually tear the book of James from their Bibles. Luther didn't do it because Melanchthon didn't allow it.
That could be. It could also be today that some folks are needing an extra helping of grace and mercy to cover for where they fall short in life before the Lord (as we all can and do), and their particular denomination affords them the interpretive allowance they think they need. (....think Ravi Zacharias, here).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟105,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry, GDL, but at the moment I'm wearing my dunce hat and I'm not sure I quite understand your questions. Would you please rephrase them and I'll be happy to give a shot at offering my two cents.

Thanks, bro!

No problem. I couldn't get into this yesterday due to wearing mine & digesting to a small degree 400 +/- posts.

I said in my analysis, in essence, that it looks like Paul is speaking of justification at conversion from unbelief to belief. And James is speaking of justification of one who has already believed and then later has his faith tested by God.

So, it seems there are 2 separate concepts of justification being discussed: (1) the unbeliever being justified when coming to faith; (2) the believer being justified when passing God's test(s).

That's the question re: thoughts & observations re: justification from Scripture.

Hope that clears it up.

Thanks for the reply.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,170
9,958
The Void!
✟1,131,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No problem. I couldn't get into this yesterday due to wearing mine & digesting to a small degree 400 +/- posts.
It has developed into a sudden avalanche of posts, that's for sure. But I guess that's productive in some ways. Lots of reading to be done by late comers, though.

I said in my analysis, in essence, that it looks like Paul is speaking of justification at conversion from unbelief to belief. And James is speaking of justification of one who has already believed and then later has his faith tested by God.

So, it seems there are 2 separate concepts of justification being discussed: (1) the unbeliever being justified when coming to faith; (2) the believer being justified when passing God's test(s).

That's the question re: thoughts & observations re: justification from Scripture.

Hope that clears it up.

Thanks for the reply.

Thank you for clarifying those points of inquiry, GDL!

I think I agree with you that Paul and James are addressing two different conceptions of justification.

However, I think if we take into account the whole corpus of Paul's writings, we find a 3rd: one that asks not for reasonable 'good deeds of faith and repentance' to be expressed as aspects of that same faith, but the insistance [by the Judaizers] that in order to be fully a Christian, a person has to disregard the primacy and finality of Christ's covenant work and focus upon a false requirement to fulfill the Old Testament Law, with circumcision being the first needed ingredient and Jesus being maybe the last. It's against this that Paul makes his most ardent protests. James, on the other hand, is addressing one of the other problems that Paul also addresses: moral negligence.

And at a basic level, that's my take on it all.

But again, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
25,108
6,101
North Carolina
✟276,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe some of you will pick this up without flagging you by quotes.

A few observations re: James & Paul - some from Scripture:

1. From the information I have James was written before Paul. Many of these letters were circulated. Paul & James knew one another and I'm sure we don't know all they discussed, and its likely their discussions were theologically in-depth. IOW, their writings are not disconnected.
2. As his letter begins, James wrote to scattered Jewish "brethren" re: testing. When he deals with the faith + works issue, he's talking to Christian brothers. When he recalls Abraham, he recalls Abraham's test from Gen22 and he says Abraham was justified/deemed righteous by faith + works and not by faith alone.
Question: Does God deem one of His Children righteous when they pass a test?
The NT is pretty clear that "no one is righteous, not even one." Ro 3:10, etc.

God's Court declares no one is righteous because no one has perfectly obeyed the Law.

Justification = declared "not guilty," given right-standing before God's Court" and given (imputed, reckoned, accounted to) only through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Justification is the righteousness that saves.

The issue in your post is the two kinds of righteousness in the NT:
justification - definition above, a one-time permanent event--involving no works,
sanctification - growth in holiness, an on-going process through obedience-- involving works.

The righteousness of Ge 15:6 is justification, not sanctification.
Isaac's sacrifice 40 years later has nothing to do with Abraham's justification in Ge 15:6.

This would be a summation of my following lengthy response.



Furthermore, James says re: Abraham's Gen22 test:
a. Abraham's faith was perfected/completed by his works when he offered-up Isaac
b. Abraham' credited righteousness from faith (Gen15:6) was fulfilled
c. He was called God's friend - Jesus had said: NKJ John 15:14-15 "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.​
15 "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Questions:
a. Does God expect our Faith to be completed by our works and thus tests us after our initial justification and deem us righteous when we succeed in a test?
No. . .that would mean Abraham had 40 years of an incomplete faith and wasn't righteous (justified) until then, 40 years after God credited righteousness to him.

Are we using "righteousness" to mean the same thing here?

I'm using it in Paul's sense of the righteousness of justification--a one-time declaration of "not guilty,' a right-standing before God's court, not a holy character imparted to one.
Holy character would be the righteousness of sanctification.

I'm saying Abraham did not wait 40 years to be justified--declared "not guilty," given right-standing before God.
b. Does this success in a test of our faith fulfill His having credited us righteousness when we first believed what he requires us to believe?
First of all, faith is not a "work". . .secondly, faith is a gift (Php 1:29; Ac 13:48, 18:27); 2Pe 1:1; Ro 12:3)
c. Does anyone desire to be God's friend by doing what He commands and passing His tests of our faith?
Faith is not a "work" by which we become righteous.
God has already declared that "no one is righteous, not even one" (Ro 3:10) because no one has been completely obedient to the Law.

Righteousness is according to the Law, which is why no one is righteous, not even one.
We must have the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is imputed, credited to us through faith to be righteous.​
3. When Paul quoted the Abraham event from Gen15:6, after discussing justification from faith, he begins in Rom4 with this:

NKJ Romans 4:1-3 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.​
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (Gen15:6)
a. Paul begins 4:2 with a 1st class condition. He's essentially saying, "lets assume for the sake of argument that Abraham was justified by works," but he has nothing to boast about toward God.
Paul is pointing out that "Salvation belongs to the Lord" (Rev 7:10; Ps 37:10; Isa 43:11), that no one can boast of anything (Eph 2:9; 1Co 1:29-31, 4:7) which one has done regarding it, that if Abraham were justified by works, then he would have something to boast about, but not before God with whom Abraham would be in disagreement that "salvation belongs to the Lord," not to Abraham.
The reason for this was God had credited his faith with righteousness. Has Paul just addressed James' justification via faith + works in testing to clear up any misunderstanding re: INITIAL justification via faith w/o works?
Paul will go on to speak of Abraham's history from Gen13 when God called him and through and including his belief in God's promises through Gen22.
But Paul's main focus is how God credits righteousness to and justifies people who turn to him from unbelief. IOW this is an initial justification/being deemed righteous by God when an unbeliever first believes. And Paul will pick up through Abraham that this is for all peoples, not just the circumcised, because Abraham was not circumcised prior to his faith-righteousness.
See definition of "justification" above.

There is only one justification. . .when one comes to believe, there is no other, for it is a permanent right-standing before God; i.e., "not guilty," no longer deserving of the condemnation of Ro 5:18.
What follows from thereon is sanctification, not more justification.
4. Paul again uses Abraham and Gen15:6 in Gal3 to speak similarly to his points in Rom4. He says Christians "began" in the Spirit not from works of law (another topic) but from a message of faith just as Abraham had. And this is pre-Mosaic Law so why are the Galatians considering turning back to Law?The initial point I'm addressing is about "justification." We have tended to get so technical with our terminology that we're putting ourselves into a theological box.
For example: Some see Salvation as a once for all event and some see it as a process. Some describe Salvation as Justification > Sanctification > Glorification. Box created > James doesn't make sense.
These terms are used in different ways in our Text (which I hope never to have to put out by the curb). Is it more accurate to say (just in one example): Justification > Justifications > Glorification?
Thoughts appreciated.
I think I see what the problem is here. In the NT:

Justification = righteousness,
Sanctification = righteousness, where

Justification (righteousness) is a one-time permanent forensic action of God's Court--delared "not guilty," involving no works,
Sanctification (righteousness) is an on-going process of growing in holiness through obedience, involving works.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟105,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, with this in mind, I tend not to think that Paul and James are deadlocked with bazookas trained upon each other's theological fortresses.

I don't think they conflict at all.

I'm just shooting from the hip in saying that nowhere that I know of does Paul talk about Isaac's near demise in relation to Abraham's faith

I once charted the main points of God's interactions with Abraham from Gen13-22. When you see Paul talking about the blessing of Abraham and his "seed" as he proceeds in Rom4, I saw reason to take what Paul was talking re: justification and Abraham through Gen22 where that blessing was given. I think he just let James deal with the justification James dealt with and clarified that initial justification was not what James dealt with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟105,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm going to apply a form of canonical criticism here and state that the 'conflict' if it were an actual conflict, would have resulted in one of the two documents not being included in the Bible as canon. Since both are included there is a way of resolving them without contradiction. The Church knew how to do it when both books were included in the canon.

Yep. And for sure, I can't deny that. So, I don't.

... but as we know, Luther had a different take on all of this, apparently, and Europe was never to be the same again after that.

I think some people need the courage of their convictions to actually tear the book of James from their Bibles. Luther didn't do it because Melanchthon didn't allow it.

I guess this begs the question of where are any writings to explain James vs. Paul and did Luther just disagree with them?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟105,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Justification = declared "not guilty," given right-standing before God's Court" and given (imputed, reckoned, accounted to) only through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Justification is the righteousness that saves.

Firstly, thanks for the response.

Mind citing your source for "Justification = ..." It sounds theological vs. lexical.

No. . .that would mean Abraham had 40 years of an incomplete faith and wasn't righteous (justified) until then, 40 years after God credited righteousness to him.

NKJ 1 Thess. 3:9-10 For what thanks can we render to God for you, for all the joy with which we rejoice for your sake before our God, 10 night and day praying exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?

Seems there is such a thing as an incomplete faith for someone who has come to faith.

First of all, faith is not a "work". . .secondly, faith is a gift (Php 1:29; Ac 13:48, 18:27); 2Pe 1:1; Ro 12:3)

A few responses

- I've not said faith is a work. You must have misunderstood.
- The gift of faith is another discussion, I'd prefer to defer for now. We'd probably mostly agree, but maybe not on all referenced verses???
- Even assuming faith to be a gift, it is tested, which is how James begins his letter:

NKJ James 1:2-3 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.

Faith is not a "work" by which we become righteous.
God has already declared that "no one is righteous, not even one" (Ro 3:10) because no one has been completely obedient to the Law.

Righteousness is according to the Law, which is why no one is righteous, not even one.
We must have the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is imputed, credited to us through faith to be righteous.

- Agree with your first statement.
- Agree that this is what Paul is quoting.
- There is righteousness according to law and righteousness that came separate from the law (Christ). Again agree with with what I understand you to be saying.
- Agree that we must have Christ's righteousness credited to us from faith in what God commands us to believe.
- Should note here that our righteousness does not stop at credited righteousness: NKJ 1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
Paul is pointing out that "Salvation belongs to the Lord" (Rev 7:10; Ps 37:10; Isa 43:11), that no one can boast of anything (Eph 2:9; 1Co 1:29-31, 4:7) one has done regarding it, that if Abraham were justified by works, then he would have something to boast about, but not before God with whom Abraham would be in disagreement that "salvation belongs to the Lord," not to Abraham.

- This is one of the issues I mentioned re: being in theological boxes. You seem to be equating Justification, which I was discussing, with Salvation. The 2 words are not equal and do not mean the same thing.
- Paul is in fact talking about our entrance into God's Salvation.
- I think we agree that when we enter God's Salvation, we are justified from faith apart from works, and there is no boast on our part because this entrance is God's work into His Salvation. Even from there, our boast is always in Christ as everything we do in God's Salvation is founded on His work and involves His empowerment.
- My point is that James is not talking about our entrance into Salvation, but talking about being tested after we enter God's Salvation.
See definition of "justification" above.

There is only one justification. . .when one comes to believe, there is no other, for it is a permanent right-standing before God; i.e., "not guilty," no longer deserving of the condemnation of Ro 5:18.
What follows from thereon is sanctification, not more justification.

- Still need your citation for the definition of justifaction.
- I think James disagrees with you re: only 1 justification. I think those who canonized may also disagree with you. I see no disagreement between James and Paul.
- It seems we could get into disagreement re: permanency, so I'd prefer to set it aside for now as another discussion.
- What if I asked you if sanctification is exclusive to only referring to the growth & development of one who has already believed? NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
- If I'm correct in how I'm seeing James & Paul, then when we first believed, and God credited Christ's righteous to us, and we were thus first justified/declared righteous, and we were first sanctified, and washed, etc..., within God's Salvation Plan, we then are trained and developed as His Children to maturity, and along this course our faith is developed and completed through continued sanctification, and additional justifications as we are tested by God.
- I know the Salvation/Justification > Sanctification > Glorification theological box. I've come out of it by studying the terminology of Scripture as it is actually used.​

I think I see what the problem is here. In the NT:

Justification = righteousness,
Sanctification = righteousness, where

Justification (righteousness) is a one-time permanent forensic action of God's Court--delared "not guilty," but it does not include holiness,
Sanctification (righteousness) is an on-going process of growing in holiness.

- The problem with my analysis, or yours? No rudeness intended.
- I understand your points. I too was trained in theologies. I don't think James was speaking of the justification you're speaking of. I think the longer we remain in that theological box, the longer this alleged conflict between Paul & James remains. I've proposed part of what I see as the potential solution.
Rather than leave you to do the work to cite things, I'm going to provide the following. The Greek word here is "dikaioō" in case you don't read Greek. So, just pick up the English. I'm taking it from "justified" in the 1 Cor 6:11 verse I inserted above. You'll see that there is much more range in the meaning of the word than the theological definition you're presenting.

δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1aor. ἐδικαίωσα; pf. pass. δεδικαίωμαι; 1aor. pass. ἐδικαιώθην; 1fut. pass. δικαιωθήσομαι; (1) generally make right or just; (2) as behaving in a way expected of the one δίκαιος (righteous, just) obey God's requirements, live right, do right (RV 22.11); (3) as demonstrating that someone is δίκαιος vindicate, show to be right (LU 10.29); (4) as acknowledging that someone is just justify, vindicate (LU 7.29); (5) as a religious technical term; (a) of imputed righteousness, as God's judging and saving activity in relation to persons justify, declare righteous, put right with (himself) (RO 3.24); (b) experientially, of imparted righteousness as freedom from sin's power make free, release, set free; passive be set free (RO 6.7) Friberg Lexicon

δικαιόω
(a) to put right with 34.46
(b) show to be right 88.16
(c) acquit 56.34
(d) set free 37.138
(e) obey righteous commands 36.22
Louw-Nida Lexicon

δικαιόω, Ion. impf. δικαιεῦν: f. ώσω and ώσομαι: aor. i ἐδικαίωσα:pass., aor. i ἐδικαιώθην: (δίκαιος):
I. to set right: Pass., δικαιωθείς proved, tested, Aesch.
II. to hold or deem right, think fit, demand, c. inf., Hdt., etc.; inf. omitted, as οὕτω δικαιοῦν (sc. γενέσθαι) Id.:-to consent, δουλεύειν Id.; οὐ δ. to refuse, Thuc.:-c. acc. pers. et inf. to desire one to do, Hdt.
III. to do a man right or justice, to judge, i.e.,
1. to condemn, Thuc.: to chastise, punish, Hdt.
2. to deem righteous, justify, N.T. Hence δικαίωμα
Liddell Scott Lexicon

δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1 aor. ἐδικαίωσα. Pass.: 1 fut. δικαιωθήσομαι; 1 aor. ἐδικαιώθην, subj. δικαιωθῶ, ptc. δικαιωθείς; pf. δεδικαίωμαι Ro 6:7; 1 Cor 4:4; ptc. δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14 (Soph., Hdt.; Aristot., EN 1136a; et al.; pap, LXX; En 102:10; TestAbr A 13 p. 93, 14 [Stone p. 34]; Test12Patr; ApcSed, 14:8 p. 136, 15 Ja.; Jos., Ant. 17, 206; Just.; Ath., R. 53, 1; 65, 14) to practice δικαιοσύνη.

1.to take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause τινά (Polyb. 3, 31, 9 ὑμᾶς δὲ αὐτοὺς … δικαιώσεσθε ‘you will (find it necessary to) take up your own cause’ = you will sit in judgment on yourselves; Cass. Dio 48, 46 ‘Antony was not taking Caesar’s side’ in the matter; 2 Km 15:4; Ps 81:3) δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον take up the cause of an upright pers. 1 Cl 16:12 (Is 53:11); τινί χήρᾳ (χήραν v.l.) 8:4 (Is 1:17 ‘take up the cause of the widow’).

2. to render a favorable verdict, vindicate.

a. as activity of humans justify, vindicate, treat as just (Appian, Liby. 17 §70; Gen 44:16; Sir 10:29; 13:22; 23:11 al.) θέλων δ. ἑαυτόν wishing to justify himself Lk 10:29; δ. ἑαυτὸν ἐνώπιόν τινος j. oneself before someone=‘you try to make out a good case for yourselves before the public’ 16:15 (δ. ἐαυτόν as En 102:10; but s. JJeremias, ZNW 38, ’39, 117f [against him SAalen, NTS 13, ’67, 1ff]). ὁ δικαιούμενός μοι the one who vindicates himself before (or against) me B 6:1 (cp. Is 50:8). τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν βαπτισθέντες tax-collectors affirmed God’s uprightness and got baptized i.e. by ruling in God’s favor they admitted that they were in the wrong and took a new direction (opp. τὴν βουλὴν τ. θεοῦ ἀθετεῖν) Lk 7:29 (cp. PsSol 2:15; 3:5; 8:7, 23; 9:2).

b. of experience or activity of transcendent figures, esp. in relation to humans

α. of wisdom ἐδικαιώθη ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς is vindicated by her children (on δικ. ἀπό cp. Is 45:25. S. also Appian, Basil. 8: δικαιόω=consider someth. just or correct) Lk 7:35; also ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς Mt 11:19 (v.l. τέκνων). On this saying s. DVölter, NThT 8, 1919, 22-42; JBover, Biblica 6, 1925, 323-25; 463-65; M-JLagrange, ibid. 461-63. Of an angel Hm 5, 1, 7.

β. of God be found in the right, be free of charges (cp. TestAbr A 13 p. 93, 14 [Stone p. 34] ‘be vindicated’ in a trial by fire) Mt 12:37 (opp. καταδικάζειν). δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14; GJs 5:1; δεδικαιωμένη (Salome) 20:4 (not pap). Ac 13:39 (but s. 3 below); Rv 22:11 v.l; Dg 5:14.—Paul, who has influenced later wr. (cp. Iren. 3, 18, 7 [Harv. II 102, 2f]), uses the word almost exclusively of God’s judgment. As affirmative verdict Ro 2:13. Esp. of pers. δικαιοῦσθαι be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous and thereby become δίκαιος, receive the divine gift of δικαιοσύνη through faith in Christ Jesus and apart from νόμος as a basis for evaluation (MSeifrid, Justification by Faith—The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme ’92) 3:20 (Ps 142:2), 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 1 Cor 4:4; Gal 2:16f (Ps 142:2); 3:11, 24; 5:4; Tit 3:7; Phil 3:12 v.l.; B 4:10; 15:7; IPhld 8:2; Dg 9:4; (w. ἁγιάζεσθαι) Hv 3, 9, 1. οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι I am not justified by this (after 1 Cor 4:4) IRo 5:1. ἵνα δικαιωθῇ σου ἡ σάρξ that your flesh (as the sinful part) may be acquitted Hs 5, 7, 1; δ. ἔργοις by (on the basis of) works, by what one does 1 Cl 30:3; cp. Js 2:21, 24f e;;ργον 1a and πίστις 2dδ); δι᾽ ἐαυτῶν δ. by oneself=as a result of one’s own accomplishments 1 Cl 32:4. (cp. κατὰ νόμον Hippol., Ref. 7, 34, 1).—Since Paul views God’s justifying action in close connection with the power of Christ’s resurrection, there is sometimes no clear distinction between the justifying action of acquittal and the gift of new life through the Holy Spirit as God’s activity in promoting uprightness in believers. Passages of this nature include Ro 3:26, 30; 4:5 (on δικαιοῦν τὸν ἀσεβῆ cp. the warning against accepting δῶρα to arrange acquittal Ex 23:7 and Is 5:23; δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν Ro 3:24 is therefore all the more pointed); 8:30, 33 (Is 50:8); Gal 3:8; Dg 9:5. For the view (held since Chrysostom) that δ. in these and other pass. means ‘make upright’ s. Goodsp., Probs. 143-46, JBL 73, ’54, 86-91.

3. to cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid, make free/pure (the act. Ps 72:13) in our lit. pass. δικαιοῦμαι be set free, made pure ἀπό from (Sir 26:29; TestSim 6:1, both δικ. ἀπὸ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας) ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμω Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι from everything fr. which you could not be freed by the law of Moses Ac 13:38; cp. vs. 39. ὁ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τ. ἁμαρτίας the one who died is freed fr. sin Ro 6:7 (s. KKuhn, ZNW 30, ’31, 305-10; EKlaar, ibid. 59, ’68, 131-34). In the context of 1 Cor 6:11 ἐδικαιώθητε means you have become pure.—In the language of the mystery religions (Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 258ff) δικαιοῦσθαι refers to a radical inner change which the initiate experiences (Herm. Wr. 13, 9 χωρὶς γὰρ κρίσεως ἰδὲ πῶς τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐξήλασεν. ἐδικαιώθημεν, ὦ τέκνον, ἀδικίας ἀπούσης) and approaches the sense ‘become deified’. Some are inclined to find in 1 Ti 3:16 a similar use; but see under 4.

4. to demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right, pass. of God is proved to be right Ro 3:4; 1 Cl 18:4 (both Ps 50:6). Of Christ 1 Ti 3:16.—Lit. s. on δικαιοσύνη 3c.—HRosman, Iustificare (δικαιοῦν) est verbum causativum: Verbum Domini 21, ’41, 144-47; NWatson, Δικ. in the LXX, JBL 79, ’60, 255-66; CCosgrove, JBL 106, ’87, 653—70.—DELG s.v. δίκη. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.
BDAG Lexicon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0