James 2:24 contradicts Romans 3:28

[tonychanyt]

James 2:24

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Let proposition J1 = A person is justified by works and faith both.

Romans 3:28

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Let proposition R1 = A person is justified by faith without works.

According to First-Order Logic, J1 contradicts R1.

How to reconcile the two verses?

Let's check the context. In fact, Paul began with an agreement with James in Romans 2:

13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

But then in the next chapter, Paul gave a warning:

3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Now, Paul seems to be contradicting himself earlier in chapter 2.

Well, not exactly. Paul warned against human arrogance and boasting. In God's sight, human works do not justify you. Give glory to Christ. Technically speaking:

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Here, Paul focused on the perfect work of Jesus so that we do not rely on our imperfect works.

27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Don't boast. It is not your works that can justify you in God's sight.

Now then, does that mean that works of law are pointless? No, don't overgeneralize either:

31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Don't throw away the law or the works of the law.

Does James 2:24 contradict Romans 3:28?

Taken out of context, yes.

With context, in fact, Paul in Rom 2 agreed with James. But then Paul went deeper in Rom 3. Strictly speaking, from our human point of view, we cannot be arrogant and boast in our works before God. We need to give glory to the perfect work of Christ.

See also

• JUSTIFICATION by works, grace, or faith?
• Logical Equivalence of Faith and Works

 

[Soyeong]

James 2:24


Let proposition J1 = A person is justified by works and faith both.

Romans 3:28


Let proposition R1 = A person is justified by faith without works.

According to First-Order Logic, J1 contradicts R1.

How to reconcile the two verses?

Let's check the context. In fact, Paul began with an agreement with James in Romans 2:


But then in the next chapter, Paul gave a warning:

Now, Paul seems to be contradicting himself earlier in chapter 2.

Well, not exactly. Paul warned against human arrogance and boasting. In God's sight, human works do not justify you. Give glory to Christ. Technically speaking:


Here, Paul focused on the perfect work of Jesus so that we do not rely on our imperfect works.

Don't boast. It is not your works that can justify you in God's sight.

Now then, does that mean that works of law are pointless? No, don't overgeneralize either:

Don't throw away the law or the works of the law.

Does James 2:24 contradict Romans 3:28?

Taken out of context, yes.

With context, in fact, Paul in Rom 2 agreed with James. But then Paul went deeper in Rom 3. Strictly speaking, from our human point of view, we cannot be arrogant and boast in our works before God. We need to give glory to the perfect work of Christ.

See also

• JUSTIFICATION by works, grace, or faith?
• Logical Equivalence of Faith and Works

The same faith by which we are be are justified is also expressed as being a doer of the law, but we do not earn our justification as the result of being a doer of the law. In other words, becoming someone who has faith, who is justified, and who is a doer of the law are all linked such that we become all three at the same time, where someone who has become one has also become the others while someone who has not become one also has also not become the others. This is how Paul can say that only doers of the law will be justified (Roman 2:13), that justified by faith apart from having done works to result in our justification, and that the faith by which we are justified does not abolish our need to be a doer of the law, but rather out faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31).

While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified (Genesis 15:6), it is also true that he believed God, so he obeyed God's command to offer Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), so the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed as being an obeyer of God, but he did not earn his justification as a wage as the result of being an obeyer of God (Romans 4:1-5). In James 2:21-24, it quotes Genesis 15:6 to support that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, that his faith was active along with his works, and his faith was completed by his works, so he was justified by his works insofar as they were an expression of his faith, but not insofar as they were earning a wage.

 

[d taylor]

-​

It is a really simple solution to the two verses

A person is justified before God by belief/faith in Jesus, as God can see the persons mind/heart.

A person is justified before man by works done in the faith, as man can not see the mind/heart. So man needs physical actions to show other believers, they are active in the faith.

But the problem is, many who are working in the faith. Have never in the first place been justified before God by belief in Jesus. They are thinking they will be justified before God by their works, which is impossible for man.

 

[tonychanyt]

-​

It is a really simple solution to the two verses

A person is justified before God by belief/faith in Jesus, as God can see the persons mind/heart.

A person is justified before man by works done in the faith, as man can not see the mind/heart. So man needs physical actions to show other believers, they are active in the faith.

But the problem is, many who are working in the faith. Have never in the first place been justified before God by belief in Jesus. They are thinking they will be justified before God by their works, which is impossible for man.

Nice simple explanation

 

[hislegacy]

First order logic is flawed

 

[tonychanyt]

First order logic is flawed

reference?

 

[hislegacy]

reference?

It takes neither verse contextually. When a statement is taken without context and compared to another statement also taken without context - it is flawed logic.

 

[tonychanyt]

It takes neither verse contextually. When a statement is taken without context and compared to another statement also taken without context - it is flawed logic.

Do you have a scholarly reference to support your claim?

 

[hislegacy]

Do you have a scholarly reference to support your claim?

It is called proper exegesis.

 

[benadamm]

Why are works of the Law such a worry?

 

[Danthemailman]

James is not using the word "justified" in James 2:24 to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3) Works bear out the justification that already came by faith.

It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 4:5-6; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-24) *Perfect Harmony*

 

[Ceallaigh]

In my opinion James is just simply saying what Jesus said; that salt without flavor is useless. That a lamp hidden under a bushel is useless.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

People who say there is any contradiction between these, confuse prior works with subsequent works and deny all Jesus' teaching about Holy Spirit and the fact of His ascension, resurrection and the purpose of His coming. They might gabble their way through the Nicene Creed but without accepting it (or resort to a long winded and gerrymandered "confession", if there are any of that kind).

They are covert cessationists in the sense that Jesus has and does nothing for us in this world. Prov 31: 10-31, Jesus' parables, the words of the prophets, the feedings of thousands, confirm the spiritual meanings of both passages you cite.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Do you have a scholarly reference to support your claim?

False dichotomy.

 

[tonychanyt]

False dichotomy.

Can you elaborate?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Can you elaborate?

The detail already given illustrates, as danthemailman and others have explained, indeed I did also in my 13.

 

[tonychanyt]

False dichotomy.

I am just trying to understand what you mean here. What false dichotomy? I do not see any false dichotomy.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

For "context" read premises and furthermore Soyeong in no. 2 and dtaylor in no. 3 have explained it which you claimed to approve.

A forum is a collaborative enterprise. We are working in concert, Orchestrating, even!

 

[AbbaLove]

I am just trying to understand what you mean here. What false dichotomy? I do not see any false dichotomy.

James (2:24) was expressing a Jewish Messianic perspective; whereas Paul's (3:28) admonition was a Messianic (non-Jewish) Perspective. For one thing gentile converts (Christians) were not required to be circumcised.

The New Revised Standard Version translation says that gentile Christians must "abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:1-35). One can understand why James and religious Messianic Jews were still beholding to the Hebrew Bible Law (e.g. Ten Commandments).

Justification: Romans 3:28 vs. James 2:24 | Theology on the Ground

theologyontheground.com

 

[tonychanyt]

James (2:24) was expressing a Jewish Messianic perspective; whereas Paul's (3:28) admonition was a Messianic (non-Jewish) Perspective. For one thing gentile converts (Christians) were not required to be circumcised.

How's that a false dichotomy?