Paul v. James (are they really at odds?)

[Polycarp1]

One has to remember that the works of Paul and the books by James that we have in Scripture are all letters -- part of a correspondence that we do not see the other parts of. The observations that Wesley John makes about there being no contradiction between what they say seem to me to be totally valid.

Contemplate the following scenarios: Paul is writing to churches containing and sometimes started by Jewish Christians, who may be toying with the idea of "righteousness earns salvation." Look at Galatians for some examples of people trying to "earn their salvation" by such things as undergoing circumcision, and what Paul has to say about it. Against this Paul stresses over and over again that salvation is the unearned gift of God, a product of His Grace, accepted through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who atoned for our sins.

Now, Paul having finally gotten this message hammered into people's thick skulls, some years later people are saying, "Well, if we're saved by faith alone, then we don't need to do good works at all -- God saves us because of our faith." And, as Paul had already pointed out, and James stresses, and preachers from my namesake and Clement down to WJ today have brought out, a real and living faith changes the interior person and means that he or she is going to live a life pleasing to God, including the doing of good works -- not to "earn" salvation, but as a product of salvation.

They were writing as they did to counter diametrically opposed heresies. It's not possible in simple expository prose to carefully cover all the possible errors people could make -- each Apostle was dealing with one error, and countering it.

 

[growingupinhim]

good4u...

Grace and Peace to you!

James and Paul were both inspired writers, who were writing about the same God and the same salvation.

Personally, I don't believe much reconciliation is necessary, if we truly understand what these two great men are saying.

Paul speaks of a free gift of salvation which comes to us by grace through faith. James tells us that faith without works is a dead faith.

Both of these statements are true.

Let me suggest this:

Authentic faith is saving faith. Authentic faith is faith which is integrated with every aspect of our being, so that it informs all that we do. As such, authentic, saving faith will 'matter-of-factly' produce good works in the believer. This is truly in harmony with Paul's teachings of the 'fruit of the spirit.' Authentic, saving, integrated faith WILL produce the fruit of the spirit, and it will produce good works.

Are you saved by works? Clearly not. You are saved through the unmerited favor of God (grace) through the shedding of the blood of Jesus the Christ upon the cross of calvary, which allows you to confess your sins and to be forgiven of those sins and to be cleansed from all unrighteousness. However, that same saving faith will produce within you all manner of good works.

You might say that good works do not bring about our salvation, but our salvation brings about good works.

Peace,

WJ

 

[seebs]

seebs implies here that James and Paul are on two different "sides" of the issue of faith and works, and that their works were "selected" to be part of the canon so as to represent both of these sides.

More in the sense WJ describes - two sides of a coin.

If you had one, but not the other, you would end up with a false picture of salvation; it is by reconciling them that we get a better picture.

My position is that both the epistles of both James and Paul belong in the canon because they are both theopneustos Scripture, and that as such, it should be presuppositionally understood that there are no contradictions between them.

I think this is a dangerous position to hold. If we are too quick to say "there are no contradictions", we may short-circuit our analytic ability, and fail to recognize that, if nothing else, there are contradictions in the interpretations people have of these texts.

The early church simply went about the task of sorting through the various books that were read in the churches to come to an agreement over certain disputed books as to which ones were genuinely part of the canon. The process of debate and discussion as to which books were canonical Scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, and the men involved knew that they were not deciding the canon, but rather, discerning the canon.

I tend to agree, which makes me very skeptical of the decision by later theologians to undiscern part of it.

That's not my understanding of Luther's position on James, but the main point that needs to be recognized is that, whatever Luther thought about James, the church is self-correcting.

Yes. The procedure of self-correction is rooted in people saying things that everyone around them thinks are obviously wrong, and works only when, confronted with a ridiculous claim, we give it a while to season and see if it may be in fact a correction, not an error.

Part of this, I think, requires that we recognize how much there is about the nature of salvation that we do not fully understand, such that we may occasionally form false beliefs about the process.

 

[seebs]

They were writing as they did to counter diametrically opposed heresies. It's not possible in simple expository prose to carefully cover all the possible errors people could make -- each Apostle was dealing with one error, and countering it.

An excellent analysis, and one I find eminently plausible.

I often wish they'd saved the other half of the correspondence. It'd be interesting to read.

 

[jbarcher]

I think this is a dangerous position to hold. If we are too quick to say "there are no contradictions", we may short-circuit our analytic ability, and fail to recognize that, if nothing else, there are contradictions in the interpretations people have of these texts.

Agreed. Also, it is a good journey for a skeptic. I'm being serious here. Reading Dan Barker's list of so-called contradictions really hammered into me that people can take all verses out of context with amazing skill. I mean...wow...is there a university/college course for that?

So, any difficulties, as I like to call them, that are brought up, it is always an excellent idea and action to thoroughly investigate them. I have heard that the Scriptures have gone through the most scrutiny. This may just be from personal reading, but I am inclined to believe that.

And the point about contradictions in the interpretations of people.....excellent.

 

[seebs]

Agreed. Also, it is a good journey for a skeptic. I'm being serious here. Reading Dan Barker's list of so-called contradictions really hammered into me that people can take all verses out of context with amazing skill. I mean...wow...is there a university/college course for that?

I don't know. I find the Skeptic's Annotated Bible to be a really pathetic showing. This isn't to say I don't think there are occasional plain contradictions, but they're not on matters of faith or morals.

On faith and morals... I have found non-contradictory interpretations, but they're sometimes very questionable, and there are a few verses I would love to understand better.

And the point about contradictions in the interpretations of people.....excellent.

Mistaking interpretation for the thing interpreted is a common problem with humans.

 

[pmarquette]

Agreed. Also, it is a good journey for a skeptic. I'm being serious here. Reading Dan Barker's list of so-called contradictions really hammered into me that people can take all verses out of context with amazing skill. I mean...wow...is there a university/college course for that?
Most of the alleged " conflicts " are by people looking to discredit biblical doctrines , sola scriptora , or literal interpretation of the Holy Writ ...
One of the rules of Biblical Hermeneutics:
" the clear , interprets the unclear " -- an alleged conflict , more often than not , is the failure to look at the original work , the original word , in this case " works " , in hebrew or greek .... or to look the verse in question in the light of what the topic / context of chapter or book is .

the context of work in James is what matthew speaks of in chapter 25. 32-42 or what Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5 the sermon on the mount , the works of a christian , which paul mentions in ephesians 4.11-12

what paul speaks of as work is what he refers to in the book of galatians ... the law , the books of leviticus and deuteronomy , what the pharisees and saducees and judaizers were saying ( which is why Jesus called them white washed tombs , blind guides , hypocrites .... )

So, any difficulties, as I like to call them, that are brought up, it is always an excellent idea and action to thoroughly investigate them. purchasing a copy of vines greek lexicon might be a good start .... or commentary on Romans and James a second step ....

I have heard that the Scriptures have gone through the most scrutiny.
have been .... either all true , or all false , no middle ground
This may just be from personal reading, but I am inclined to believe that.
the list you speak of is trash , there are no contradictions within the book , only the perceived , contrived , or fabricated ones by those who are with an unrepentant spirit , lacking eyes and ears ( heathen ) , or those who seek to pull down the word of God / Christ Jesus / the Holy Spirit -- servants of darkness...
And the point about contradictions in the interpretations of people.....excellent.

 

[seebs]

pmarquette, very good point about the interpretations. I personally tend to assume that Paul meant works of the Mosaic Law, because the people he was writing to had lists of behaviors categorized as "pleasing" and "unpleasing"... I think it often gets extended to mean "anything whatsoever that you do", which seems to me to be exactly the misunderstanding that James is warning against.

 

[jbarcher]

Hehe, I share the same view on supposed contradictions. Hence I call them difficulties. Also, consistently calling them difficulties may really make it click in a person's mind when all their supposed contradictions are shown to be non-contradictory.

The SAB appears to me as a merely mockery. I remember reading through the first 20 chapters of Genesis when I was an atheist there. But, I've got my own NASB now.

Bible reading is fun.

 

[A. believer]

The possibility that two claims can be reconciled through interpretation does not prove that, as originally intended, that's what they meant.

No it doesn't, but as I said, I start with the presupposition that Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore, infallible and non-contradictory. My exegesis in reconciling them can be wrong, but the idea that James and Paul might be in contradiction is ruled out a priori. In your later posts, though, you softened this position considerably to agree with Polycarp, and that's the position that I, also, espouse. Clearly, James and Paul are addressing different issues, which accounts for their different answers. Paul's epistles, though, present a much broader soteriology than anything one finds in James's one epistle.

This sounds to me like a fancy way of saying "we have changed the way in which we look at Scripture, and man-made teachings have accreted along the way". I don't think that the original writers, or the people who selected canon, had in mind the broad kind of perfection that many modern readers impute to the text.

It may sound that way to you, but that's not what I said. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture, so obviously the idea of apostolic epistles as Scripture wasn't foreign to the apostles, themselves.

No. It is a reference to specific texts which he referred to as Scripture.

Paul says that all of Scripture is theopneustos. Peter says that Paul's epistles are Scripture. It's no unwarranted leap to say that Paul's epistles are [/i]theopneustos[/i]. And since the best evidence is for the rest of the New Testament to be regarded as Scripture, it too, is rightly called theopneustos. The question over how the Holy Spirit led the authors of Scripture to write infallibly, without superceding their personalities is an interesting one, but like the discussion about how the sovereignty of God works together with the free agency of man, we obviously can't fully comprehend it.

What is or isn't accepted as Scripture changes; what Paul was writing about does not. He had specific text in mind; he made no claims about other texts.

Whether or not we rightly recognize the canon of Scripture doesn't change what the nature of Scripture is. If God is its author, it's infallible--God cannot err. How we recognize what's Scripture is another issue.

No, it isn't. It is to say that, as every apostle clearly stated, some of those teachings are not fully understood by men, and it is in our nature to attempt to explore and gain understanding beyond the things we were actually told. When we do so, we learn a great deal, but we sometimes do so in error.

That's also another issue. We're talking about the nature of Scripture right now, not the correct method by which we understand what God is communicating through those Scriptures.

Or the leading of the Holy Spirit, perhaps. Ours is a living God, not a dead one; He's still around, if we slow down enough to listen.

Without an objective revelation against which to test truth, how does one discern when he's being led by the Holy Spirit and what is the authoritative source for arbitrating competing truth claims from those who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?

This is a rather thorough misunderstanding of my position.

We are taught to test everything. This should include any words that someone tells us are "Scripture". Which books shall I accept, pray tell? The 66 that are popular among Protestants? The 73 the Catholics use? The 79 of the Ethiopians? What of translations? What of hermeneutics? Cultural context?

Yes, those are legitimate questions, and they have legitimate answers.

It seems to me it hardly matters whether the original texts are 100% infallible and inerrant in every detail, or merely "good enough", such that study of them leads us to God. Either way, when humans read them and declaim about what they mean, errors will occur.

Of course. But I'm just talking about the objective ultimate reference point for truth. Obviously, God is that standard, but this is about where we find God's infallible revelation.

I am not judging God; I am asking God whether this book people keep shoving at me represents Him fairly, and He says that, for the most part, it does, but that a bit of caution is required in the reading. This seems obvious enough.

How did God reveal to you that the Scriptures "represent Him fairly for the most part?"

 

[seebs]

No it doesn't, but as I said, I start with the presupposition that Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore, infallible and non-contradictory.

Yes. This is indeed a presupposition, and that's pretty much why I am not fully convinced of it.

My exegesis in reconciling them can be wrong, but the idea that James and Paul might be in contradiction is ruled out a priori. In your later posts, though, you softened this position considerably to agree with Polycarp, and that's the position that I, also, espouse. Clearly, James and Paul are addressing different issues, which accounts for their different answers. Paul's epistles, though, present a much broader soteriology than anything one finds in James's one epistle.

I think the basic point is that Paul's letters, as interpreted by many people, argue a position which is contradicted by James; this suggests that either he's wrong, or that the popular interpretation is wrong.

It may sound that way to you, but that's not what I said. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture, so obviously the idea of apostolic epistles as Scripture wasn't foreign to the apostles, themselves.

A good point. He also points out that it's hard to understand.

Paul says that all of Scripture is theopneustos.

The text is ambiguous; it can reasonably be interpreted either as "all Scripture which is...", or as "all Scripture is...". Or at least, so I am told by people who read period Greek.

Peter says that Paul's epistles are Scripture. It's no unwarranted leap to say that Paul's epistles are [/i]theopneustos[/i]. And since the best evidence is for the rest of the New Testament to be regarded as Scripture, it too, is rightly called theopneustos. The question over how the Holy Spirit led the authors of Scripture to write infallibly, without superceding their personalities is an interesting one, but like the discussion about how the sovereignty of God works together with the free agency of man, we obviously can't fully comprehend it.

The problem I have is mostly with how people interpret that word. It can be understood to mean anything from "if you study this carefully, it will lead you correctly" to "every last punctuation mark is precisely correct and every factual claim or implication is necessarily the exact and literal truth".

Whether or not we rightly recognize the canon of Scripture doesn't change what the nature of Scripture is. If God is its author, it's infallible--God cannot err. How we recognize what's Scripture is another issue.

The Bible says God can send "strong deceptions" to men; this is not erring, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the resulting impressions are true.

Anyway, I don't agree with "author". There's a big step from "inspired" to "wrote", and I'm not convinced that it is appropriate to make it.

This leaves us, however, with a more serious problem: If we can't tell what is, or is not, Scripture, then what good does it do us to know that "Scripture" is infallible, if we can't always recognize it?

That's also another issue. We're talking about the nature of Scripture right now, not the correct method by which we understand what God is communicating through those Scriptures.

These seem to me to be essentially intertwined issues. In particular, if our interpretation isn't good enough, then it doesn't matter how good the source is; our interpretation is still wrong sometimes.

Without an objective revelation against which to test truth, how does one discern when he's being led by the Holy Spirit and what is the authoritative source for arbitrating competing truth claims from those who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?

A tricky problem, and one which goes far beyond the scope of this discussion. This is the foundational question of epistemology, as well; how can we recognize or test truth?

The simple answer appears to be that we can't, and we must at some point have faith in a few premises.

I do not currently believe that we have reliable access to an authoritative way for arbitrating truth claims. Simply put, we are too unreliable. We will, in practice, always risk putting our own ideas forward a little too strongly, and not listening enough to God.

Of course. But I'm just talking about the objective ultimate reference point for truth. Obviously, God is that standard, but this is about where we find God's infallible revelation.

Right. And I am not yet convinced that we can infallibly discern said revelation.

How did God reveal to you that the Scriptures "represent Him fairly for the most part?"

How does a friend reveal to you whether or not her biography is accurate?

I observe the world, I observe people; I think about what they say, I compare notes, and I find underlying patterns. I have very low confidence, so far, but it's the best I can do without making presuppositions. I have established that different presuppositions could get me all sorts of interesting, and mutually exclusive, results.

If I am to be honest in my search for God, I must be careful in how many presuppositions I accept. I'm sure many of the readers here agree with my skepticism about the infallibility of Catholic Tradition.

My methods are slow, but I would rather learn slowly than learn incorrectly. If I have understood the nature of the problem correctly, I have all of eternity to work on completing my understanding of God; I am in no hurry.

 

[good4u]

Good discussion everyone....

We don't change hearts or understanding, but only through the illumination of Holy Spirit to a teachable heart...do we have peace about how salvation is attained.

I have peace with God.

I do not speak for anyone else or their assurance of their salvation. It is between them and their God.

I personally do not see Paul or James in disagreement. The apostle Paul gives the process while James gives the result of that process. If there is no result, then it follows logically, that there was no process. THERE MUST BE A CHANGE, both inwardly (process) and outwardly (result). Hence, these two great servants, Paul and James, are in totally agreement with each other.

The problems arise, unfortunately, on how one EMPHASIZES these two aspects of the same spiritual transformation, namely, salvation. One type of faith may over emphasize one aspect (results/works) at the expense of the other (process, i.e., grace thru faith in Christ). BOTH are necessary, grace is not cheap, it cost the Lord Jesus His very life. But, at the same time, the Lord clearly expects something of you, the cost of discipleship, amen? It costs, otherwise, salvation is worthless to the giver and receiver. We show our gratitude to the Lord by serving him in the capacity he has called us in whatever work that may be. That is our "work" and that is what James, I believe, is speaking of as our work of the faith.

Ah....the beauty of discussion...amen?

I told you I would wait until the end to give my humble opinon. Any thoughts or feelings?

 

[all2elohim]

How many actions (or works) do I do each day that show to the world my faith is in the God of the universe. If I never witness to nonbeliever's it is because of a lack of faith. My works (which man can see) is just an outward expression of my faith (which only God can see). They are one and the same, one expressing the spiritual realm, the other the physical realm. By no means is the Bible contradictory in the matter. James was writing to spiritually lazy Christians who were making the grace of Christ look cheap.

The point is this: If Christians claim Christ with their mouth and not their lives they are making the gospel utterly unbelievable to an unbelieving world

 

[pmarquette]

pmarquette, very good point about the interpretations. I personally tend to assume that Paul meant works of the Mosaic Law, because the people he was writing to had lists of behaviors categorized as "pleasing" and "unpleasing"... I think it often gets extended to mean "anything whatsoever that you do", which seems to me to be exactly the misunderstanding that James is warning against.

works ; 2 different words used [ baros & pharon ..... ] work of the body - carnal, burden , carrying ... as with job , profession ; second word indicates a spiritual burden as with grief , oppression , depression , obsession ]

we are to assist / minister to each other [ corporal works of mercy ... James ; Matthew 25.32-42 ] ; but we are not to do some one elese's job for them [ welfare , adc , pinch hitter type deal ... earn own way ].

 

[eldermike]

The main word in James is "Trials", it's not "works". The scattred Jewish beleivers were suffering trials. The evidence of faith is works, the pastor James is trying to encourage believers in trials, to let this evidence be seen. It's the perfecting process, it's about maturity as a Christian.

Paul never said "don't work". Paul explaind something that James did not see the need to explain. James was writing to converted Jews who knew the works of the law, they were not confused in the slightest as to His meaning of works in trials revealing maturity, they got it! Paul was speaking to those that had no concept of the law but within the communities there were those that were trying to convert folks first to Jews, then to Christ. It's a different message. You can't mix this stuff, context will always pull it back apart.

Mike

 

[Arc]

seebs,
The more I read what you say, the more I agree with you and realize I am making a similar journey.

You can see Paul and James as "guard rails" so to speak. Like you said, there is a problem with man's interpretation going so far as to contradict another part of the Bible.

I see a serious problem when people divide over what appear to be minor biblical interpretaions when the Bible itself doesn't seem to be clear enough without supplemental man made doctrine injected into it to "make it clear".

 

[pmarquette]

pmarquette, very good point about the interpretations. I personally tend to assume that Paul meant works of the Mosaic Law, because the people he was writing to had lists of behaviors categorized as "pleasing" and "unpleasing"... I think it often gets extended to mean "anything whatsoever that you do", which seems to me to be exactly the misunderstanding that James is warning against.

TBN had a Jesus special on Paul last night 2-15-04 which addressed these items very well ....

Jesus said " I come not to abolish , but to fulfill the Law " ; speaking of Leviticus and Deuteronomy , and the commandments of moses

Paul speaks of the Scribes , Pharisees that had made a mockery , burden of the Law , by making it almost impossible for the average person to keep
The books of Galatians and Romans are an effort to lay out the frame work for Jewish Christians , Gentile Christians , explain the dispensation of grace for both Jew and gentile ...

James speaks of the work of the kingdom , the 11th commandment , love all men as God loves them .... will be evidence of the that love within you , that willl manifest in what you do and who you are ...

 

[pmarquette]

Paul was the " egg head " of the bunch . Paul had a doctorate in theology , was a student of Gamaleial .... the rest were like the average christian : know what Jesus said , what heard in church [ had not attended a seminary ]

II Peter 3:15-17
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
Peter saying : Paul talks above some of our heads , what is clear to him because of his education and the gift of wisdom by the Holy Spirit , takes the rest of us a bit longer to decifer ....

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Paul was creating words in Greek that had not existed before [ uncommon combinations ] to explain salvation , eternal life , propitiation , redemption . He was wrestling with how to be a Jew , keep the commandments of God given the Nation of Israel and at the same time , permitting the gentiles to be exempt of the Law ( deuteronomy and leviticus ) ...

[17] Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. look at the message of 1-2 Corinthians -- carnality ; Galatians the conflict of grace and the law , the conflict between Jewish and Gentile christians ; Romans the issue of the Law , circumcision , sabbath , etc.
Paul comes accross as an attorney [ canon lawyer ] to debate , to verify , to dissmiss , to refute .... have to know both old and new covenant to understand what he refers too ...