Paul and James Reconciled

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
PLEASE IGNORE THE FOLLOWING STRIKETHROUGH “say” he has “faith,” one could conclude that he really does not have “faith,” but when that verse is read in context with the rest of the pertinent verses it is clear that he has an existing “faith” that is dead.

Part of the difficulty in grasping the idea of an actual (or legitimate) “faith” that is not a saving “faith” comes from the fact that we are used to Paul’s “faith,” which is an actual and saving “faith.” The difficulty is eliminated once it is recognized that Paul and James have different essential meanings for the term “faith” (and James’s essential meaning was transitional).] What we believe is expressed through our actions and our actions testify about what we believe, which is why James said that he would show his faith by his works, so if someone claimed that they have faith in God to guide them in how to rightly live, but they refuse to follow his guidance [it is the essay’s position that (1) Christians can have “faith” and follow the guidance of the law, but it is not a matter of obligation and (2) Christians can have “faith” and follow the guidance of the Scriptures, including particularly the teachings of Christ, and His apostles, to the church, but excluding the law.], then their actions would reveal that their words were empty and that their claim was false. So when James spoke about Abraham being justified by his works, he was showing his faith by his works and being justified by that same faith [James never says that Abraham was “justified by faith.” James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works,” as James uses that phrase, with “faith,” as he uses that term, included in the four processes that James refers to by the phrase “justified by works.”] whereas when Paul was speaking against earning our justification by our works. However, Paul said that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13) [I have addressed this in my earlier separate reply to you], so he was in agreement with James that we are still required to obey the law as an expression of our faith, but not for the goal of earning our justification.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to express His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). The fruits of the Spirit [Gal. 5:22 refers to “fruit” (singular)] are all aspects of God's nature, so the Mosaic Law is His instructions for what it looks like to express the fruits of the Spirit [Paul does not, in Gal. 5:22, in Galatians chapter 5, or in any of his epistles, say that “the Mosaic Law is His instructions for what it looks like to express” the fruit of the Spirit. Paul’s teaching is that the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance—are produced whether Christians (1) exclude complying with the law for any purpose or (2) comply with the law, not as a matter of obligation, but as a matter of preference or conscience.], as Jesus expressed through his sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrew 1:3), so by delighting in expressing his nature through our obedience to the Mosaic Law through faith we are expressing our love for who he is [the essay’s position is that Christians are free to comply with the law in accord with preference or conscience, but the issue is obligation—they are not obligated to comply with the law.], we are testifying about who he is, and we are experientially coming to know him. So what James may not have spoken about faith as being a belief in the heart or a fruit of the Spirit, I don't think that he would have been in disagreement with either of those statements, and I don't see good grounds for abandoning anything that James taught.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
“say” he has “faith,” one could conclude that he really does not have “faith,” but when that verse is read in context with the rest of the pertinent verses it is clear that he has an existing “faith” that is dead.

Part of the difficulty in grasping the idea of an actual (or legitimate) “faith” that is not a saving “faith” comes from the fact that we are used to Paul’s “faith,” which is an actual and saving “faith.” The difficulty is eliminated once it is recognized that Paul and James have different essential meanings for the term “faith” (and James’s essential meaning was transitional).] What we believe is expressed through our actions and our actions testify about what we believe, which is why James said that he would show his faith by his works, so if someone claimed that they have faith in God to guide them in how to rightly live, but they refuse to follow his guidance [it is the essay’s position that (1) Christians can have “faith” and follow the guidance of the law, but it is not a matter of obligation and (2) Christians can have “faith” and follow the guidance of the Scriptures, including particularly the teachings of Christ, and His apostles, to the church, but excluding the law.], then their actions would reveal that their words were empty and that their claim was false. So when James spoke about Abraham being justified by his works, he was showing his faith by his works and being justified by that same faith [James never says that Abraham was “justified by faith.” James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works,” as James uses that phrase, with “faith,” as he uses that term, included in the four processes that James refers to by the phrase “justified by works.”] whereas when Paul was speaking against earning our justification by our works. However, Paul said that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13) [I have addressed this in my earlier separate reply to you], so he was in agreement with James that we are still required to obey the law as an expression of our faith, but not for the goal of earning our justification.


The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to express His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). The fruits of the Spirit [Gal. 5:22 refers to “fruit” (singular)] are all aspects of God's nature, so the Mosaic Law is His instructions for what it looks like to express the fruits of the Spirit [Paul does not, in Gal. 5:22, in Galatians chapter 5, or in any of his epistles, say that “the Mosaic Law is His instructions for what it looks like to express” the fruit of the Spirit. Paul’s teaching is that the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance—are produced whether Christians (1) exclude complying with the law for any purpose or (2) comply with the law, not as a matter of obligation, but as a matter of preference or conscience.], as Jesus expressed through his sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrew 1:3), so by delighting in expressing his nature through our obedience to the Mosaic Law through faith we are expressing our love for who he is [the essay’s position is that Christians are free to comply with the law in accord with preference or conscience, but the issue is obligation—they are not obligated to comply with the law.], we are testifying about who he is, and we are experientially coming to know him. So what James may not have spoken about faith as being a belief in the heart or a fruit of the Spirit, I don't think that he would have been in disagreement with either of those statements, and I don't see good grounds for abandoning anything that James taught.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
In Lutheranism we already have language that helps us address this situation. Namely, that there are two kinds of righteousness.

There is righteousness Coram Deo, or righteousness before God; i.e the righteousness by which one is reckoned just before God which we say is a "passive righteousness". In other words, it is a righteousness that we receive, not a righteousness which we do. It is Christ's own righteousness imputed to us as pure gift, received through faith. This is what Sola Fide means, that we are justified by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone. This is what St. Paul talks about when he speaks of our being justified through faith, and not by works. It is not a righteousness by the Law, that is a righteousness of works, but an imputed righteousness through faith--it is Christ's own righteousness. Christ's righteousness is ours as a gift, imputed to us, which we cleave to by faith, and thus we are counted as righteous before God.

There is also righteousness Coram Mundus, or righteousness before the world, or Coram Hominibus, before human beings. This is the righteousness of obedience to God's commandments, and thus it is an "active righteousness". This is the righteousness of our good works before the world, for the sake of our fellow man. This is what St. Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:10, that we have been created for good works in Christ Jesus, and it's what St. James is talking about in his epistle. The point James makes is that "just believing" isn't enough, after all even the devils believe and tremble; rather we demonstrate our faith through works, works for our neighbor, which is why James is concerned with living the Great Commandment, the Royal Law--"Love your neighbor as yourself", and condemns showing partiality based on wealth and class, and rebukes the hypocrisy of the human tongue. This is not righteousness before God which saves us, this is righteousness before our fellow man.

Before God the only righteousness that matters is the passive righteousness which we have received as pure gift, imputed to us by grace through faith, it is Christ's own righteousness.

Before the world the only righteousness that matters is the active righteousness that we are supposed to exhibit through good works done in love, motivated by our faith in Christ out of obedience to God's command.

Two kinds of righteousness.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RickReads
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
In Lutheranism we already have language that helps us address this situation. Namely, that there are two kinds of righteousness.

There is righteousness Coram Deo, or righteousness before God; i.e the righteousness by which one is reckoned just before God which we say is a "passive righteousness". In other words, it is a righteousness that we receive, not a righteousness which we do. It is Christ's own righteousness imputed to us as pure gift, received through faith. This is what Sola Fide means, that we are justified by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone. This is what St. Paul talks about when he speaks of our being justified through faith, and not by works. It is not a righteousness by the Law, that is a righteousness of works, but an imputed righteousness through faith--it is Christ's own righteousness. Christ's righteousness is ours as a gift, imputed to us, which we cleave to by faith, and thus we are counted as righteous before God.

There is also righteousness Coram Mundus, or righteousness before the world, or Coram Hominibus, before human beings. This is the righteousness of obedience to God's commandments, and thus it is an "active righteousness". This is the righteousness of our good works before the world, for the sake of our fellow man. This is what St. Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:10, that we have been created for good works in Christ Jesus, and it's what St. James is talking about in his epistle. The point James makes is that "just believing" isn't enough, after all even the devils believe and tremble; rather we demonstrate our faith through works, works for our neighbor, which is why James is concerned with living the Great Commandment, the Royal Law--"Love your neighbor as yourself", and condemns showing partiality based on wealth and class, and rebukes the hypocrisy of the human tongue. This is not righteousness before God which saves us, this is righteousness before our fellow man.

Before God the only righteousness that matters is the passive righteousness which we have received as pure gift, imputed to us by grace through faith, it is Christ's own righteousness.

Before the world the only righteousness that matters is the active righteousness that we are supposed to exhibit through good works done in love, motivated by our faith in Christ out of obedience to God's command.

Two kinds of righteousness.

-CryptoLutheran

That`s pretty good theology.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Lutheranism we already have language that helps us address this situation. Namely, that there are two kinds of righteousness.

There is righteousness Coram Deo, or righteousness before God; i.e the righteousness by which one is reckoned just before God which we say is a "passive righteousness". In other words, it is a righteousness that we receive, not a righteousness which we do. It is Christ's own righteousness imputed to us as pure gift, received through faith. This is what Sola Fide means, that we are justified by the grace of God alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone. This is what St. Paul talks about when he speaks of our being justified through faith, and not by works. It is not a righteousness by the Law, that is a righteousness of works, but an imputed righteousness through faith--it is Christ's own righteousness. Christ's righteousness is ours as a gift, imputed to us, which we cleave to by faith, and thus we are counted as righteous before God.

There is also righteousness Coram Mundus, or righteousness before the world, or Coram Hominibus, before human beings. This is the righteousness of obedience to God's commandments, and thus it is an "active righteousness". This is the righteousness of our good works before the world, for the sake of our fellow man. This is what St. Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:10, that we have been created for good works in Christ Jesus, and it's what St. James is talking about in his epistle. The point James makes is that "just believing" isn't enough, after all even the devils believe and tremble; rather we demonstrate our faith through works, works for our neighbor, which is why James is concerned with living the Great Commandment, the Royal Law--"Love your neighbor as yourself", and condemns showing partiality based on wealth and class, and rebukes the hypocrisy of the human tongue. This is not righteousness before God which saves us, this is righteousness before our fellow man.

Before God the only righteousness that matters is the passive righteousness which we have received as pure gift, imputed to us by grace through faith, it is Christ's own righteousness.

Before the world the only righteousness that matters is the active righteousness that we are supposed to exhibit through good works done in love, motivated by our faith in Christ out of obedience to God's command.

Two kinds of righteousness.

-CryptoLutheran

Hi CryptoLutheran! And thank you for sharing those thoughts. Lutheranism draws a definitely understandable distinction between the two kinds of righteousness, and this is a frequent way to reconcile Paul and James on justification. I love what you have written about Paul’s imputed righteousness. And I definitely agree that Christians are to do good works. But I also think something more is happening.

1. Between Jas. 2:21, which refers to “justified by works,” and Jas. 2:24, which refers to “justified by works,” James identifies four things: (1) faith wrought with works, (2) by works faith is perfected, (3) the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness,” and (4) he was called the friend of God. Aren't these four things together what James means when he uses the phrase “justified by works”?

2. You have written concerning “active righteousness” that “this is righteousness before our fellow man.” The essay discusses this issue and I quote that portion of the essay below.

“it is sometimes argued that when James says a man is “justified by works,” James is saying that by works a man is justified before men. However, nowhere in Jas. 2:21-24, does James use the phrase “before men” or say that Abraham was “justified before men.”​

Moreover, when Abraham offered Isaac, God was there, but the only person present other than Abraham was Isaac, and it is not clear whether he was a “man” (an adult) when Abraham offered him. In any event, there were no “men” (plural) present “before” whom Abraham could have been justified when he offered Isaac. Further, Jas. 2:23 says Abraham was “called the Friend of God.” By whom? God. At Isa. 41:8, God, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, referred to “Abraham my friend.” If it is God Who is calling Abraham His friend at Jas. 2:23, this suggests that it is God Who is justifying at Jas. 2:21 and 24.

Further still, the words “justified” (Jas. 2:21, 24) and “righteousness” at Jas. 2:23 are completely different in appearance. But the underlying Greek words are clearly related. The word “justified” at Jas. 2:21 is a translation of “edikaiothe.” (George V. Wigram and Ralph D. Winter, The Word Study Concordance (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1978), p. 696.) The word “justified” at Jas. 2:24 is a translation of “dikaoutai.” (Ibid.) “Righteousness” at Jas. 2:23 is a translation of “dikaiosunen. (Ibid.) All of these Greek words share the root “dike” which pertains to a judicial verdict. (Strong's Greek: 1344. δικαιόω (dikaioó) -- to show to be righteous, declare righteous re “justified” at Jas. 2:21; James 2:24 Interlinear: Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only; re “justified” at Jas. 2:24; Strong's Greek: 1343. δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosuné) -- righteousness, justice re “righteousness” at Jas. 2:23.)

Thus, a person reading Jas. 2:21-24 in the Greek would associate the Greek words underlying “justified” at verses 21 and 24 with the Greek word underlying “righteousness” at verse 23. And it is God, not men, Who counted Abraham’s “faith” for righteousness at verse 23. After all, Gen. 15:6 says, “And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and he [the Lord] counted it to him for righteousness.” (Italics added.) Accordingly, the reader of Jas. 2:21-24 would reasonably infer that “justified by works” for James means justified by God, not justified “before men,” and that God justified Abraham when he offered Isaac.

Indeed, if “justified by works” for James meant justified “before men,” that would suggest (contrary to Gen.15:6) that men, not God, are imputing righteousness to Abraham. Beyond that, if James were teaching that justification by “works” meant justification before men, this would suggest that you could have all the “faith with works” you wanted but, if those “works” were not done before men, you would not be justified. “Faith with works,” with “works” that only God could see, would not count, even though they showed your “faith.” That is not James’s teaching. [Fn. omitted.]” The omitted footnote reads: ”And even if, when James used the phrase “justified by works,” he were referring to justified “before men,” his doctrine would be transitional for the reasons discussed later in this essay.”​

What are your thoughts concerning this?

3. Paul and James both use the phrase “justified by works” and clearly mean different things by it. Both of them, using that phrase, wrote inspired Scripture. Both, using that phrase, received their respective doctrines from Jesus Christ. Doesn’t that mean that Paul would deny that he uses “justified by works” with James's meaning, and James would deny that he uses “justified by works” with Paul's meaning? Does this present an issue?

4. Paul used “justified by faith” to refer to imputed righteousness, and “justified by works” to refer to righteousness earned by works, a process by which, according to Paul, no one is justified. Paul never taught as part of the “gospel,” as James does, that (1) a person is not “justified by . . . faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (“faith only” meaning “faith without works”) or (2) that a person was “justified by works” based on James’s meaning of that phrase.

Paul said at Gal. 1:8-9:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”​

The Scripture does not contradict itself, and God is not the author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14:33.) If the teachings of both Paul and James on justification must be taught to Christians today, does James’s teaching on justification present an issue in light of Gal. 1:8-9?
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Except James isn’t saying to keep the works of the law of Moses.

The examples given of what Abraham and Rahab did that justified then by works, have nothing to do with the law of Moses, especially since Moses came 430 years after Abraham.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Except James isn’t saying to keep the works of the law of Moses.

The examples given of what Abraham and Rahab did to be justified by works aren’t from the law of Moses, particularly since Moses was 430 years after Abraham.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Except James isn’t saying to keep the works of the law of Moses.

The examples given of what Abraham and Rahab did to be justified by works aren’t from Mosaic law.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.
Are you one of these "rightly dividing the Scriptures" folks who go around dicing the NT up into portions that apply to Jews, and to portions that apply to Christians?
 
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

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except James isn’t saying to keep the works of the law of Moses.

The examples given of what Abraham and Rahab did that justified then by works, have nothing to do with the law of Moses, especially since Moses came 430 years after Abraham.

Hi Mr. Kincham. I agree with you that James teaches that Abraham and Rahab were “justified by works” as James used that phrase, and that this had nothing to do with the law of Moses. I also agree that James does not say “to keep the works of the law of Moses.” However, I have written above, and my essay demonstrates, that James’s epistle is teaching that “Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses.”

My essay includes a portion entitled, “James And The Roles Of Law And Works Of The Law”; that portion is set forth below. Some of the points made below are: (1) Jews, whether Christians or not, are under obligation to the law of Moses and must comply with it, (2) the sins of Jews, Christians or not, break the law, i.e., the sins are transgressions, (3) all Jews will be found guilty under the law, (4) Jews who have shown no mercy are not Christians and God will judge these Jews without mercy, and (5) Jews who are Christians show mercy, and God will show them mercy despite their guilt.

VIII. JAMES AND THE ROLES OF LAW AND WORKS OF THE LAW

Below we discuss the roles of the law of Moses and works of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian according to James. In order to do so, it is necessary to consider James’s various references to the law in his epistle.

A. THE “WORD” INCLUDES THE “PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY,” I.E., THE LAW OF MOSES

At James 1:22-25, James states,

“22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”​

(Italics added.)

Here, James says that his readers are to be doers of the “word,” and “not hearers only.” He later insists that his reader is to continue in the “perfect law of liberty,” “being not a forgetful hearer.” The parallel of “word/not hearers only” and “perfect law of liberty/not a forgetful hearer” is evidence that the “word” at least includes the “perfect law of liberty.”

Moreover, to the Jews to whom James was writing, the “word” would consist at least of the Old Testament, including the law of Moses. This too is evidence that the “perfect law of liberty” is the law of Moses. Further, Jews reading about a “law” of liberty would naturally think of the “law” of Moses. Further still, if the phrase “perfect law of liberty” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase found nowhere else in the Bible to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses.

The above facts indicate that the “perfect law of liberty” is the law of Moses and, if so, imply that James wants Jewish Christians to “continu[e]” in the “perfect law of liberty” and be a “doer of the work.” (Italics added.) That is, James wants Jewish Christians to do works of the law of Moses.

B. THE “ROYAL LAW,” THE “LAW,” AND THE “LAW OF LIBERTY” ARE THE LAW OF MOSES

At Jas. 2:1-7, James denounces having faith with “respect of persons,” i.e., preferring the rich over the poor. He then states at Jas. 2:8-13:

“8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [NASB and NIV: “convicted”] of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”​

(Italics added.)

These verses are divisible as follows. Verses 8 and 9 contrast (1) fulfilling the “royal law” according to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and (2) having respect of persons and being convicted of the “the law as transgressors.” Verses 10 and 11 explain why those having respect of persons are convicted of the law as transgressors. Verse 12 is an admonition of future judgment. Verse 13 explains, discussing the relationship between, on the one hand, that future judgment and, on the other, the presence or absence of mercy. As discussed below, these verses demonstrate that James is telling the Jews to whom he is writing that they are under obligation to the law of Moses and must comply with it.

First, at James 2:8-9, James contrasts fulfilling the “royal law” according to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and (2) having respect of persons and being convicted of the “the law as transgressors.” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is unmistakably a commandment of the law of Moses found at Lev. 19:18. That shows that the “royal law” to be fulfilled according to Lev. 19:18 is the law of Moses. Moreover, the Jewish reader would understand being convicted of the “law” as transgressors as being convicted of the law of Moses as transgressors or breakers of the law of Moses. That in turn, again, shows that the “royal law” is the law of Moses. Further, James says that if you fulfill the “royal law,” “ye do well.” (Italics added.) He clearly wants his Jewish reader to comply with the “royal law,” i.e., law of Moses.

Indeed, if “the royal law” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase—“the royal law”—found nowhere else in the Bible, to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses referred to multiple times in Jas. 2:9-13, as discussed below.

Second, James 2:10-11 explain verse 9. Verse 10 teaches that whoever will keep “the whole law” (italics added)—an undeniable reference to the law of Moses—and offend “in one point”—an obvious reference to a single point in the law of Moses—is guilty of all—a clear reference to being “guilty” of all points in the law of Moses. Verse 11 further explains, referring to two of the Ten Commandments of the law of Moses, “Thou shall not kill [murder]” (Ex. 20:13) and “Thou shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). One who breaks one commandment of the law of Moses but not another is nonetheless a transgressor of the law of Moses. Thus, having respect of persons makes one a transgressor of the law. James implicitly teaches his Jewish readers that their sin of having respect of persons makes the readers transgressors of the law, which presupposes they are under obligation to it.

Third, Jas. 2:12 implicitly admonishes the Jewish readers to not have respect of persons and to “do” as people who will be judged by the law of liberty. In the context of Jas. 2:8-11 and its multiple references to the law of Moses discussed above, James at Jas. 2:12 is warning his readers that what they “do” will be judged by “the law of liberty,” which is the law of Moses.

If the “law of liberty” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase—the “law of liberty”—found nowhere else in the Bible (except at Jas. 1:25, which we have discussed) to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses referred to multiple times in Jas. 2:9-13, of which Jas. 2:12 is a part. And James, telling them to “do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (italics added) is telling them to do works of the law of Moses.

Finally, James is teaching at Jas. 2:13 as follows. All Jews—Christian or not—will be judged by the law of liberty, i.e., the law of Moses. All Jews (certainly having offended at least in one point) will be guilty under the law. The Jewish unbeliever, having shown no mercy (e.g., having respect of persons), will be judged guilty and shown no mercy by God. Indeed, such a judgment is consistent with the harsh provisions of punishment under the law of Moses. Thus, Hebrews 10:28, referring to Jewish unbelievers, says, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses[.]” (See also Heb. 2:2-3.) However, the Jewish Christian, having shown mercy, will be judged guilty but will be shown mercy by God. The teaching of James that his Jewish readers will be judged guilty under the law of Moses presupposes that they are subject to it.

C. A “DOER OF THE LAW” IS A DOER OF THE LAW OF MOSES

At Jas. 4:11, James admonishes,

“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”​

Again, the Jewish reader would understand James’s references to “law” in this verse to be references to the law of Moses. The reader would also understand James to be enjoining him or her to be a “doer of the law” (italics added)—a doer of the law of Moses—and not a judge of the law. This reflects that James wanted his Jewish reader to do works of the law.

In light of the above, is it clear to you that James's epistle is not teaching that “Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses”?
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except James isn’t saying to keep the works of the law of Moses.

The examples given of what Abraham and Rahab did to be justified by works aren’t from the law of Moses, particularly since Moses was 430 years after Abraham.

Please see my reply to your today's 4:27 p.m. post. Thank you!
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Except James isn’t saying to keep the works of the law of Moses.

The examples given of what Abraham and Rahab did to be justified by works aren’t from Mosaic law.

Please see my reply to your today's 4:27 p.m. post. Thank you!
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you one of these "rightly dividing the Scriptures" folks who go around dicing the NT up into portions that apply to Jews, and to portions that apply to Christians?

Hi Swag365! Thank you for your question. I would say that the essay maintains that Paul wrote to a church(es) and to individual Christians, while James wrote to the "twelves tribes" (Jas. 1:1), i.e., to the Jews, some of whom were Christians, and some of whom were not. (Like some Old Testament writings to the Jews, some of whom believed in God and some of whom did not). Hope that answers your question! God bless you.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Swag365
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The essay I have been referring to is entitled, “PAUL AND JAMES RECONCILED: THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP” and is subtitled, “How Paul Led James To Abandon James’s Transitional Doctrine Of Justification By Works And To Accept Paul’s Revelation Of Justification By Faith (Or Why It Is Error To Teach Christians Today That “Faith Without Works Is Dead”).” The essay is available at christianitywithoutcompromise.com under the “Essay” section of the website. Summaries of the essay are available under the website’s “Summaries” section.
 
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

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi brother! Thanks for your reply. Here are some thoughts.

Take Paul and James on the meaning of “faith.” When Paul says we are “justified by faith,” his essential meaning of “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit which is the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true. I say this because Paul says that “faith” is: (1) part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); belief (Rom. 4:3, 9); inside a person (2 Tim. 1:5); that of a Christian (“your” faith; Rom. 1:8; 2 Th. 1:3); and “with the heart” (Rom. 10:10); that what God says is true (Gen. 15:5-6; Rom. 4:3). In this sense, “faith” is a spiritual, technical term for Paul.

Like Paul, for James, in Jas. 2:14-26, “faith” involves belief that what God says is true. But a major key to understanding what “faith” is for James is to recognize that he teaches that just as a body without a spirit is dead, so “faith without works” is dead. (Jas. 2:26.) Thus you correctly note that James says that “faith without works is dead, a dead faith.” But James’s body metaphor implies that just as a body with a spirit is living, so “faith with works” (my shorthand for “faith . . . wrought with . . . works” (Jas. 2:22)) is living; otherwise “faith with works” is dead too and there is no point in James distinguishing between “faith without works” and “faith with works.” That means that, for James, just as a body can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of bodies—a dead body and a living body—“faith” can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of “faith” for James—dead “faith” and living “faith.” I will refer to James’s “faith without works” as his first kind of “faith” and his “faith with works” as his second kind of “faith.”

In fact, duality concerning “faith” is implicit throughout Jas. 2:14-26. James’s first kind of “faith”—“faith without works”—does not save (Jas. 2:14), and it is profitless (2:14), dead (2:17), alone (2:17), unshown (2:18), the kind that a demon has (2:19), and the “faith” of a vain or foolish man (2:20). Further, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s first kind of “faith” does not work with “works” (2:22), is not perfected by works (2:22), does not fulfill Gen. 15:6 and is not counted for righteousness (2:23), is not the “faith” of a friend of God (2:23), and therefore is not the “faith” of a Christian. On the other hand, James’s second kind of “faith”—“faith with works”—saves and is profitable, living, not alone, and shown, and it is not the kind that a demon has and is not the “faith” of a vain or foolish man. Moreover, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s second kind of “faith” works with “works,” is perfected, fulfills Gen. 15:6 and is counted for righteousness, and is the “faith” of a friend of God and therefore the “faith” of a Christian. (Nonetheless, James never says that this second kind of “faith” is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or “belief with the heart.”)

James thus leaves us to deduce his essential meaning of “faith” from his two kinds. His essential meaning of “faith” (in the context of humans, not demons) is: belief inside a person that what God says is true. (And unlike Paul, James never teaches that “faith” in its essential meaning is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or belief “with the heart.”) The essential meaning of “faith” for James is spiritually neutral and there are only two possibilities for such “faith”; it is either (1) the first kind and not the “faith” of a Christian or (2) the second kind, the “faith” of a Christian. “Faith” in its essential meaning for James does not tell you which kind it is. Which kind it is depends on an additional fact: whether the “faith” is without “works” or whether the “faith” is with “works.” When “faith” is without “works,” that “faith” is James’s first kind. When “faith” is with “works,” that “faith” is his second kind. In the context of justification, “faith” in its essential meaning for James is thus not the technical term that “faith” is in its essential meaning for Paul.

It is important to remember that sometimes the same words have different meanings in the New Testament. Sometimes they have an ordinary meaning and other times a spiritual or technical meaning. For example, Luke 18:18-19 record that a ruler once asked Jesus, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Italics added.) Jesus replied, “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.” (Italics added.) The ruler was using the word “good” with its ordinary meaning among the Jews; Jesus was using it with a technical meaning making “good” an exclusive attribute of Deity. Jesus was trying to teach the ruler not to call Him good unless he acknowledged, correctly, that He was God. When James refers to “faith” with its essential meaning, he is using the term with its ordinary meaning among the Jews, while Paul invests the term with a spiritual, technical meaning.

Or take Paul and James on the phrase “justified by works.” For Paul, that phrase (Rom. 4:2) refers to two processes that a person engages in pursuant to a contract: (1) a person engages in “works” and (2) in return God “pays” that person with righteousness as a debt God owes for the “works.” (Rom. 4:4.) For Paul, “works” in this context means outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him. And Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” as Paul uses that phrase (Rom. 4:2). (As you point out, Paul clearly teaches that Christians are to do “works”—in another context, i.e., “good works”—but they have no place in Paul’s concept of justification by “faith,” which is simply “faith counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5)).

On the other hand, when James uses the phrase “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21), James is referring to four processes. According to Jas. 2:22-23, those processes are (1) “faith” works with “works,” (2) by “works” “faith” is perfected, (3) the person’s “faith” is counted for righteousness, and (4) the person is called the friend of God. (This does not involve a contract “obligating” God.) And this “faith” is James’s second kind. “Works” are outward conduct that show “faith.” Finally, James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” as James uses that phrase. (Jas. 2:21.) Indeed, James, writing to Jews (1:1) teaches that even Gentiles are “justified by works,” because he teaches Rahab was “likewise” (2:25) “justified by works.”

So, although Paul and James use the terms, for example, “faith” and “justified by works,” they have different meanings for those terms, although they are all inspired Scripture.

The fact that, e.g., Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” and James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” is not contradictory. Those teachings would be contradictory only if they were taught concurrently and the two apostles meant the same thing by the phrase “justified by works.” But the apostles do not mean the same thing by that phrase.

However, if the doctrines of Paul and James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian must be taught today, the contradiction is more fundamental. For example, Paul has one essential meaning for “faith,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. Yet Paul, declaring that his essential meaning for “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit consisting of the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true, would deny James’s teaching that the essential meaning of “faith” is simply belief inside a person that what God says is true. James, declaring that his essential meaning of “faith” is simply belief inside a person that what God says is true, would deny Paul’s teaching that the essential meaning of “faith” is part of the fruit of the Spirit consisting of the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true.

Similarly, Paul has one meaning for “justified by works,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. However, Paul, maintaining that “justified by works” means his two contract processes, would deny that that phrase means James’s four processes. James, maintaining that “justified by works” means his four processes, would deny that that phrase means Paul’s two contract processes. If the doctrines of Paul and James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian must be taught today to Christians, the resulting purported Biblical teaching is contradictory.

However, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). There is no conflict in these doctrines as reflected in the apostles’ respective epistles because when Paul introduced his “revelation” to James, James, giving the right hand of fellowship, accepted Paul’s revelation, agreed James would teach it in the future, and abandoned James’s previous teachings on, e.g., the essential meanings of “faith” and “justified by works.” In other words, the reconciliation is to view James’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as transitional. It should be no surprise, then, that Paul’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Christian are taught in various New Testament books, but the only New Testament book containing James’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian is the Epistle of James.
(As the essay discusses, James wrote his Epistle of James before, and Paul wrote his Galatian letter after, the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). God bless you and I appreciate your thoughts brother.
James and Jude were not of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, who were with Christ for the over three years--as was Matthias, who was Judas' replacement--in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ personally.

Paul likewise got his doctrine as the apostles did, from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven
(2Co 12:2-5).

Christ did not leave the care of his mother to James nor Jude, family members (Jude 1), but to John, the apostle.

James probably did not believe in Jesus until after the resurrection.

While containing much good exhortation to godliness, James' letter, except for a few references (1:1, 2:1, 4:7-8. 14), contains nothing distinctly Christian. It could just as well have been written to Pharisees.

James disagrees with Paul on justification, and is in error.
It makes one wonder how James' letter made it into the Canon.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
James and Jude were not apostles of Jesus Christ, and were not with Christ for the over three years in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ.

Paul likewise got his doctrine from Jesus Christ in the third heaven.

Christ did not leave the care of his mother to James or Jude, family members (Jude 1), but to John, the apostle.

James probably did not believe in Jesus until after the resurrection.

While containing much good exhortation to godliness, James' letter, except for a few references (1:1, 2:1, 4:7-8. 14), contains nothing distinctly Christian.

James disagrees with Paul on justification, and is in error.
It makes one wonder how James' letter made it into the Canon.
.

Hi Clare73! Thank you for your comments. I agree with some of them and for now, if I may, I will address only two.

First, you indicated that James was not an apostle of Jesus Christ. You wrote:

James and Jude were not apostles of Jesus Christ, and were not with Christ for the over three years in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ.”​

(Italics added.)

I would respectfully submit that this is incorrect; James (the author of the Epistle of James) was an apostle.

At Gal. 1:15-19, Paul writes:

"15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.”​

(Italics added.) Thus, James was an apostle. However, I agree that this James was not one of the twelve apostles. This may be what you mean, as you say James was not “with Christ for the over three years in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ.” (Italics added.) But there were apostles other than the 12. For example, Paul and Barnabas were both apostles (Acts 14:14) but not of the 12.

Second, you maintain that “James disagrees with Paul on justification, and is in error.” I would respectfully submit a different approach, which is reflected in my initial 11-8-20 post and expanded upon in my essay:

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a ‘revelation from Jesus Christ,’ a ‘gospel’ that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This ‘revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the ‘revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this ‘gospel,’ with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the ‘right hands of fellowship’ (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this ‘gospel,’ revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this ‘gospel,’ revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.”
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There really is no dispute between the two of them, the wrench only comes in when theologians try to force Biblical revelation into easily swallowable snippets rather than letting it breathe. The key point between them both is what's important is that we believe God. Paul's "justification by faith" is a matter of putting your trust in Christ and living according to His purpose, which will necessarily change how you act. James' point is if how you act hasn't changed, you don't really believe. Abraham's actions were not "good deeds" like feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc, but hearing God's instructions and putting them into action. He believed God, so what God said. An example from the gospel's of this important point would be the parable of the two sons.

“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. 30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. (Matt. 21:28-31)

James' person declaring "faith" is like the second son, making an empty declaration that has no reality to it. Paul's "salvation by faith" is fuller, though, and in no way denies the need to act in accordance to that faith. Instead, Paul is pointing out that it is not for the merits of the works that we are saved.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi Clare73! Thank you for your comments. I agree with some of them and for now, if I may, I will address only two.

First, you indicated that James was not an apostle of Jesus Christ. You wrote:

James and Jude were not apostles of Jesus Christ, and were not with Christ for the over three years in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ.”​

(Italics added.)

I would respectfully submit that this is incorrect; James (the author of the Epistle of James) was an apostle.

At Gal. 1:15-19, Paul writes:

"15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.​

(Italics added.)
Thus, James was an apostle. However, I agree that this James was not one of the twelve apostles. This may be what you mean, as you say James was not “with Christ for the over three years in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ.” (Italics added.) But there were apostles other than the 12. For example, Paul and Barnabas were both apostles (Acts 14:14) but not of the 12.
Hi Kenneth. . .good post.

Yes, by "apostle," I mean those personally appointed by Jesus, and in addition, Matthias, the one those apostles who were chosen by Jesus then appointed to replace Judas (Ac 1:13-26), who had been with them from John's baptism to Jesus' ascension, and who enjoyed apostolic authority.
Second, you maintain that “James disagrees with Paul on justification, and is in error.” I would respectfully submit a different approach, which is reflected in my initial 11-8-20 post and expanded upon in my essay:

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a ‘revelation from Jesus Christ,’ a ‘gospel’ that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This ‘revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the ‘revelation from Jesus Christ’ (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this ‘gospel,’ with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the ‘right hands of fellowship’ (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this ‘gospel,’ revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this ‘gospel,’ revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship.
This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.”
That works were required for Abraham's justification (Jas 2:24) has never been correct.
Abraham's works, 40 years later (Ge 17), were always a manifestation of his credited righteousness (justification) by faith, (Ge 15:6) and never the cause of it.

Actually, Martin Luther reconciles it best: "A man is justified (given right-standing before God;
i.e., "not guilty")
by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

True faith manifests itself in works, but it is not those works which justify, it is only the faith that justifies, and that is explicitly contradicted in
Jas 2:24:
"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

The only way James can be reconciled to Paul is if he is using "justify" to mean "verify," instead of Paul's meaning of a crediting/imputing of "not guilty" by God the Judge, setting one right with justice, and in a right relationship of fellowship with God, instead of condemnation
(Ro 5:18). Once God declares one "not guilty," right with justice and in right relationship to him, there is no more justification to be received, it's over, it's done, one has been removed from condemnation for sin by God himself, the Judge.
 
Last edited:
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

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
James and Jude were not apostles of Jesus Christ, and were not with Christ for the over three years in which the apostles received revelation and instruction from Christ.

Paul likewise got his doctrine from Jesus Christ in the third heaven.

Christ did not leave the care of his mother to James or Jude, family members (Jude 1), but to John, the apostle.

James probably did not believe in Jesus until after the resurrection.

While containing much good exhortation to godliness, James' letter, except for a few references (1:1, 2:1, 4:7-8. 14), contains nothing distinctly Christian.

James disagrees with Paul on justification, and is in error.
It makes one wonder how James' letter made it into the Canon.
.

You're mistaken on a couple of points, for example James lack of Christian character. James, in fact, echoes Christ more than other Biblical authors relying almost exclusively on the sermon on the mount as the basis for his ethical presentation.

More crucially, your statement that James and Paul are in disagreement as far as justification goes is plain incorrect. While James seems to be responding and contradicting "faith alone," it is a specific understanding of that doctrine that he is contrasting with true justification. James is not saying that we are justified based on the merit of our works, either through obedience to Jewish law or through an accumulation of worth, but instead is speaking of someone whose actions contradict their claim to faith. Peter also notes that there are those who hear Paul's words and mistake them for license, and Paul himself speaks against the possibility. The point of separation between the two of them seems not to be in how they use "justification," "works," or even "faith" but what they mean by "by." In Paul, the issue is one of merit while in James the issue is one of consistency. Abraham's offering Isaac in no way "earned" Abraham's righteousness, but it serves as a confirmation of that righteousness. The righteousness itself is Abraham's believing God.
 
Upvote 0