- Nov 8, 2020
- 57
- 12
- 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.
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